Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS

TXE 4 Equipment

Mr. Geoffrey: Finsberg asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications when he expects to announce his conclusions on the next generation of trunk exchange equipment.

Mr. Golding: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he has yet received any decision relating to TXE 4 telephone exchanges from the Post Office Board; and whether he will make a statement.

The Minister of Posts and Telecommunications (Sir John Eden): The Post Office expects shortly to reach a conclusion about large local exchanges, after which the Government will take their decision as soon as possible and I will then inform the House.

Mr. Finsberg: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Has he completely ruled out the idea of laying a White Paper before the House giving his conclusions, so that the House may consider the matter in some detail?

Sir J. Eden: No, Sir. At this stage I have not ruled out any idea, but I have not yet received an account of the Post Office's own thinking on these matters.

Mr. Golding: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is important for him to press on the Post Office Board the importance of taking a decision as quickly as possible? Is he aware that any defer-

ment of the decision will lead to a lowering of the quality of service, which in turn will be attacked from the benches behind him?

Sir J. Eden: I am not aware of any desire by the Post Office to delay a decision but, as the hon. Gentleman knows very well, it is one of considerable importance, not least to industrial and employment matters.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Talking of new equipment, will my right hon. Friend accept compliments upon the enormously improved equipment available to hon. Members?

Sir J. Eden: I am sure that the Post Office will be grateful for my hon. and gallant Friend's comments.

Sub-post Offices (Closure)

Mr. Madel: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications how many sub-post offices were closed in November 1972.

Sir J. Eden: This is a matter for the Post Office, and I regret that I do not have the information for which my hon. Friend asks.

Mr. Madel: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the great resentment in Dunstable at the Post Office's decision to close the Downs sub-post office. Is he aware that the proposal to close main post offices in Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard on Saturday afternoons as from February 1973 means that there will be four sub-post offices open on Saturday afternoons in Leighton Buzzard, and three in Dunstable? Given that Dunstable is the larger town, will my right hon. Friend look again at the closure of the Downs sub-post office? I think that as the larger town we are entitled to have more sub-post offices open, especially on Saturday afternoons.

Sir J. Eden: I am aware that my hon. Friend has made vigorous representations to the Post Office since it made known the decision to close the sub-office in question, and that he has received a full explanation of the reasons behind it. I well understand the strength of local feeling in such cases, but the Post Office Act 1969 makes it clear that the nature and scale of counter services in a given locality are management matters for the


Post Office, and therefore it would be wrong for me to intervene.

Mr. Golding: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there has been much concern at the closing of Knighton sub-post office, in my constituency, and that that concern is as much about the lack of consultation and the procedures gone through as about the loss of facilities for pensioners to draw their old-age pension benefits?

Sir J. Eden: I am sure that the Post Office will take note of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, but it is the practice of the Post Office to consult local interests before closing any of its offices. As for the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question, arrangements of that kind are more directly a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that although it is a management matter for the Post Office, sub-post offices provide an important Government service in helping old-age pensioners to draw their pension, and that in places like my own constituency of Lewisham, West it is becoming increasingly difficult, because old-age pensioners have to travel long distances to draw their pensions? The Government cannot just say that it is a management matter for the Post Office.

Sir J. Eden: The Government do not just say that. I just say that arrangements for the payment of pensions, family allowances and such matters are in the first instance questions for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

British Broadcasting Corporation (Board of Governors)

Mr. Witehead: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will now announce the name of the new Chairman of the British Broadcasting Corporation.

Mr. William Price: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will now announce the new Chairman of the Governors of the British Broadcasting Corporation.

Sir J. Eden: The Prime Minister announced last week that the new Chairman of the BBC will be Sir Michael Swann.

Mr. Whitehead: I do not wish to pass judgment on Sir Michael's capacity for maintaining the integrity and independence of the BBC, and I welcome the reversion to the previous pattern of a part-time appointment. Will the Minister draw the attention of the new Chairman of the BBC to the BBC's regrettable decision to sack Mr. Charles Parker, a most distinguished radio producer and winner of the Italia Prize, whose main fault seems to be that he wishes to go on producing creative programmes rather than being a cog in a machine creating mass-produced ones, particularly bearing in mind that there is likely to be industrial action after Christmas by his fellow professionals, who feel very strongly about this dismissal?

Sir J. Eden: Appointments or replacements of the kind to which the hon. Gentleman refers are not a matter for me; they are entirely a matter for the BBC.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must follow the advice of the Select Committee. The Question simply asks whether the Minister will announce the name of the new Chairman, and I am not prepared to have other different questions hung on to it.

Later—

Mr. Buchan: On a point of order. May I revert to Question No. 7, Mr. Speaker?—not just your point that no more supplementaries should be allowed but the ruling that you gave at the time? As we understood your ruling, it was to the effect that since the answer—the name of the person involved—had been given, no further supplementaries would be in order, arising out of the Select Committee Report—

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman? There was no question of a supplementary question being out of order. It is my discretion, which the House gives me.

Mr. Buchan: I made that clear, Mr. Speaker. We are not challenging your decision to refuse supplementaries. What


I am talking about is the ruling which you added to that, and your explanation for stopping questioning at that point.
As we understood your explanation, it was that, since the name had been given—that is, the answer to that particular Question—you would take no more supplementaries. The question which has been posed related to the functions of the new Chairman, whose name has been given, in relation to the forthcoming strike over the sacking of Mr. Charles Parker.
In addition, I would have thought that, by analogy with the question whether a copy of a speech had been put in the Library, Questions relevant to the appointment of the Chairman would have been in order. We would therefore seek a reconsideration of the ruling that you gave.

Mr. Speaker: I try very hard to be patient with the House. I am constantly told to hurry up Question Time. The recent Report of the Select Committee said that I should restrict supplementaries when I could. Here was a Question which simply dealt with the announcement of a name. I exercised my discretion. I am at once criticised, and more time is wasted. All I would ask hon. Members who take the view that I should allow supplementaries ad infinitum is to say so when this matter is being debated. As the moment the Report of the Select Committee has been accepted by the House, and I do my best.

Mr. John Grant: On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There can be no point of order about the exercise of my discretion.

Mr. Buchan: Further to my point of order. I feel that I must revert to this. No one is questioning your right to review supplementaries, Mr. Speaker. What we are asking about is the ruling that you gave in refusing them. We ask you to reconsider that ruling, because many regarded it as very serious.

Mr. Speaker: Of course I will reconsider anything at any time, and I will take each Question on its merit. This was a simple Question about a name. The name had been given I exercised

my discretion, and no matter of order can arise.

Mr. Tinn: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will consider varying the appointment of governors to the British Broadcasting Corporation so as to include representatives with specific responsibility for suitable geographical regions of England, bearing in mind population distribution as well as cultural and other factors, distinguishing the Northern Region among others.

Sir J. Eden: No, Sir.

Mr. Tinn: Is the Minister satisfied with a situation in which, for example, the North-Eastern region is still dominated by Manchester, although part of that region is further from Manchester than is Manchester from London? Is it not time for a bit of English nationalism, instead of endless pandering to the Celtic fringe?

Sir J. Eden: The position of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is different, and fully recognised to be so. The other appointments to the board of governors are designed to give the best possible comprehensive range of skills and qualities that can be brought together in such a body.

Television Licence Evasion

Mr. Sydney Chapman: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what is his estimate of the number of persons avoiding payment of the television broadcast receiving licence; what revenue this represents; and if he will propose changes in the procedures and method of collecting licence fees.

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what progress is being made in detecting those evading the payment of television licences; and if he will give estimates of the revenue currently being lost by the British Broadcasting Corporation because of such evasion in England and Scotland, respectively.

Sir J. Eden: The estimated number of evaders fell from 950,000 at 31st March 1972 to 700,000 at 30th September. Loss of revenue is now about £5 million.


Separate estimates for England and Scotland are not available. I am not at present proposing any changes in the methods of collecting licence fees.

Mr. Chapman: I am grateful for that answer, and I welcome the trend, but since about 17 million television licences were issued in the last 12 months for which figures are available, representing about 90 per cent. of the households in the country, does not my right hon. Friend think that there might be a case—in order further to reduce evasion—for people to be asked to opt out of paying rather than opting in? The money might be collected in a different way—with the rates, or by the Inland Revenue with income tax.

Sir J. Eden: As I have said, I have no plans at present to propose any changes in the method of collecting fees, but of course I will consider my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. Lipton: How on earth does the Minister know how many people are not paying for licences? How does he count them?

Sir J. Eden: This is an attempt to try, by means of detector vans and other devices, to get as complete a coverage as possible. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome not only the trend but the vigorous attempts which are made to ensure that everybody pays what is due from them.

Casual Postal Staff (Christmas Period)

Mr. Ewing: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications (1) what percentage of casual postal staff employed over the Christmas pressure period this year will be students and what percentage will be from the unemployment register;
(2) how many casual postal staff the Post Office expects to employ over the Christmas pressure period this year; and how this figure compares with the same period over the past three years.

Sir J. Eden: Information is not available about the proportions of students and unemployed. It is, however, Post Office policy to give preference to persons on the unemployment register.
The Post Office tells me that it expects to employ about 100,000 casual postal staff this year, which compares with 110,000 for 1971 and 134,000 for 1970. The figures for previous years are not available.

Mr. Ewing: The Minister's reply brings out the facts that I want to highlight. The number of casual postal staff employed at Christmas time has been steadily declining over the years. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that even at this early stage of the Christmas period there is evidence that this year parcel traffic has increased by 10 per cent. and letter traffic by about 5 per cent.? Would the Minister like to pay a tribute to the full-time postal staff who carry this load and make sure that the Christmas traffic is delivered on time? Surely this would be a good opportunity to do so?

Sir J. Eden: I welcome the opportunity to pay tribute to the immense effort involved in getting the bulk of mail and parcel deliveries to their destinations in time for Christmas. I am sure that every hon. Member will wish to join me in that tribute. The employment of casual staff has to have a direct correlation to the anticipated volume of traffic to be dealt with.

Kingston upon Hull (Telephone System)

Mr. Charles R. Morris: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will make a statement indicating his policy in relation to the renewal of the licence of the Hull Corporation to continue to operate a telephone system.

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will make a statement regarding his policy relating to the continued operation by the city of Kingston upon Hull of its telephone system.

Sir J. Eden: Hull's present Post Office licence does not expire until December 1977. The future of the Hull local telephone service will be in the first instance a matter for negotiation between the Post Office and the successors to the present Hull Corporation.

Mr. Morris: Is the Minister aware that, despite the achievements of the municipally controlled Hull telephone system and the justifiable pride in the system of my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and Kingston upon Hull. West (Mr. James Johnson), the reorganisation of local government will create a completely new situation? Is it likely to influence the Minister's thinking about the renewal of the licence?

Sir J. Eden: As I said, in the first instance this is entirely a matter for negotiation between the Post Office and the successors to the Hull Corporation. That is a perfectly proper procedure, and I must leave it at that.

Mr. James Johnson: Whatever the motives behind my hon. Friend's question and whatever the content of the Minister's answer, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the people of Hull and half a million Humbersiders not only enjoy this facility but are jealous of it and proud of it, and will stand by it for decades to come? Is he further aware that the exchange is not only more efficient than other exchanges but much cheaper, and gives amazing facilities such as bedtime tales for kiddies? It even gives the speeches of parliamentary candidates. Is the Minister aware that no one either in Humberside or outside wishes to change the existing system?

Sir J. Eden: All these are factors which will be fully taken into account in the negotiations.

Mr. McNamara: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) are subscribers to the Hull Corporation system, and use it? Is he further aware that there would be a great deal of resentment at any suggestion of removing this unique example of municipal socialism from the control of Hull Corporation? What we want is not an increase in the licence fee to the Post Office but royalties from the Post Office for the lead that we give to it in supplying services.

Sir J. Eden: Both hon. Gentlemen have properly paid tribute to the enterprising entrepreneurial spirit of an independent operation.

Broadcasting (Advisory Committee's Report)

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications when he intends to publish the Television Advisory Committee's report to him; and if lie will make a statement.

Mr. Golding: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he has yet received the report on the technical future of broadcasting.

Sir J. Eden: The report of the Television Advisory Committee is being published today. Copies will be available in the Vote Office this afternoon. I am extremely grateful to Sir Robert Cockburn and his colleagues for the work they have done. Their main conclusions are that the first priority is to complete as soon as possible after 1980 the coverage of the UHF 625-line television service, and that new technical developments are unlikely to have a significant impact on broadcasting during the present decade.

Mr. Finsberg: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving the House the opportunity of reading over Christmas this fascinating document. Will the broad conclusions which he announced as being contained in the report inhibit the industry from pressing on with new and revolutionary ideas?

Sir J. Eden: I am sure that they need not inhibit anyone from pressing forward with new developments. The report will help to put into technological perspective the nature of some of these advancing techniques.

Mr. Golding: Is the Minister aware that if there are no technical developments which will have an impact within the next decade there is no reason why there should not now be a committee of inquiry into broadcasting after 1976? Is the Minister further aware that the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries recommended an inquiry into the unified transmission of broadcasting services, and does he have that recommendation under consideration?

Sir J. Eden: The question of an inquiry was not before the Television Advisory Committee.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: The Minister will recall that in answer to a recent question which I put to him on this subject he said that he was waiting for this report to decide whether he would have a full-scale inquiry. Now that he has the report, will he have the full-scale inquiry as soon as possible?

Sir J. Eden: I am now giving close attention to the observations which are contained in the report of the Television Advisory Committee. The Government will then make their conclusions about the wisdom or otherwise of having an inquiry.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: But now that the Minister has indicated that there is nothing to prevent a broadly-based inquiry, and bearing in mind that we are now in December 1972, will he set up such an inquiry as quickly as possible?

Sir J. Eden: I have already answered a question relating to whether there should be an inquiry and, if so, in what form, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the charter and the Acts do not expire before 1976.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

New Houses (Sale and Mortgage)

Mr. Hardy: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the average price of a new house sold and the average size of mortgages arranged in the first quarter of 1971 and the third quarter of 1972, respectively.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Paul Channon): The average price of new private dwellings mortgaged with building societies was £5,462 in the first quarter of 1971 and £7,899 in the third quarter of 1972. Corresponding average mortgage advances are estimated to have been about £4,100 and £5,800 respectively.

Mr. Hardy: Does not that answer show that the Minister's Department has presided over one of the worst aspects of the most vicious inflation in British history, so that hundreds of thousands of people are bearing crippling burdens of debt? Will he now abandon the claim that the ordinary worker on ordinary earnings can purchase a new house? If

such a worker could purchase his own house in 1970, he certainly cannot do so in 1972.

Mr. Channon: No; I cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman says. All of us deplore the rise in house prices but, in spite of that rise, the number of people who obtain mortgages as first time purchasers has increased, the number of those under 25 who obtain mortgages has increased, building society lending is up and the amount of advances has also increased.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Does my hon. Friend realise that one of the most important factors in the regrettable rise in the cost of houses arises from the difficulty in obtaining planning permission on existing sites? This is particularly true of rural constituencies. Will the Minister do all he can to expedite the granting of planning permissions, which should be granted rather than that reasons should be put forward against them?

Mr. Channon: I appreciate what my hon. and gallant Friend says, and I am anxious that planning permissions should be granted in the speediest possible time.

Mr. Crosland: The figures are appalling and the Minister knows it. Since he frequently tells the House that one way of dealing with the situation is to build more houses, will he now explain the extraordinary fact that in the White Paper on Public Expenditure, which was published yesterday, the amount to be spent on housing in the next five years is to decrease below its present appallingly low level.

Mr. Channon: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the question is related to the average prices of new houses sold—that is to say, houses in the private sector. He will be pleased to learn that the figures of starts and completions in the private sector are substantially up on 1970 and 1971.

Mr. Walter Johnson: Does not the Minister realise that the enormous increase in house prices will be regarded as the scandal of 1972? Will he or his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment ask the building societies to stop granting second mortgages and also to look into the enormous amount of money lent to land developers?

Mr. Channon: The best way of dealing with house prices in a situation where demand has been increasing is to increase the supply of private sector houses. I have already told the House that both starts and completions are substantially up.

Channel Tunnel

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the Channel Tunnel.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): I have nothing to add to the replies given by my right hon. Friend to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Dodds-Parker) on 20th October and 28th November.—[Vol. 843, c. 150 and Vol. 847, c. 100.]

Mr. Adley: I welcome the move towards turning the Channel Tunnel into a reality. Does my hon. Friend not agree that it is strategic planning madness to have two different Departments planning both the Channel Tunnel and Foulness Airport? Are not the two schemes bound to interact upon each other? Will he further agree that the Foulness decision should be delayed until we know whether we are to have a Channel Tunnel?

Mr. Griffiths: My hon. Friend is entirely right to say that it would be strategic planning madness if the two were separated, but the whole point in having a Department of the Environment is that transport and land use planning have been brought together. Therefore, on that point my hon. Friend, with the greatest respect, is wrong. Of course there is an interaction between these matters, and we are keeping that aspect under the fullest review at all times. We shall make known to the House our conclusions as soon as it is practicable to do so.

Mr. Tilney: In any planning for the Channel Tunnel will my hon. Friend bear in mind the interests of the North-West and the North, and particularly the rail links round London?

Mr. Griffiths: Yes, Sir. The Channel Tunnel, at least potentially, should give to British Rail a considerably new additional opportunity to move goods and trains into Europe. I am sure that my

right hon. Friend will bear my hon. Friend's point in mind.

Rents

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will obtain information from local authorities indicating what percentage of council tenants are paying more rent, after allowing for rebates, as a result of the Housing Finance Act.

Mr. Channon: No, Sir. To do so would only add to the work of local authorities when they are busy with the implementation of this Act. Moreover, overall figures would not be meaningful.

Mr. Mitchell: Is not the real reason the Minister will not ask for this information the fact that he knows that if it were obtained it would show that all the Government's propaganda about the Housing Finance Act is sheer baloney.

Mr. Channon: No, Sir. The real reason is that which I have already given the House, namely, that administratively it would be extremely difficult, that it would demand a special return from local authorities which they would not welcome, and that the information would not be meaningful because it would depend upon whether authorities had operated rebate schemes and also on the amounts by which the rents of dwellings had increased in October.

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: Will my hon. Friend insist that local authorities which send round scare-tactic letters to tenants at ratepayers' expense should be forced, like the borough of Lewisham, to send round a letter explaining that there is a large number of people who have benefited from the Act and emphasising that many old people are now able to live decently for the first time for a very long time?

Mr. Channon: I have not seen the Lewisham leaflet, but I agree that the extraordinarily misleading propaganda of the Labour Party is already backfiring.

Mr. Leonard: Did the Minister see the article in this morning's Guardian which indicated a severe backlog in the GLC area in dealing with applications for rent rebate? Will he take action to suspend the operation of rent increases under the


Housing Finance Act in Greater London until this backlog is sorted out?

Mr. Channon: I have not seen the article, but I shall look at it with great care. The rent increases have already taken place and I cannot change those—they have already happened.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Will the Minister make a simple admission to the House that apart from those who are on social security, who are not affected in any case, the overwhelming majority of tenants have had an increase in rent. Will he answer yes or no?

Mr. Channon: Even the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. R. C. Mitchell), if I understood a supplementary question put by him last week, pointed out that some 30 per cent. of the tenants of Southampton presumably were paying less.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: No: that is not true.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is it not a fact that the overwhelming majority of tenants are paying vastly more money in rent? The Minister knows this, he knows that it is happening in London, so why does he not admit the truth?

Mr. Channon: The hon. Member knows full well that the overwhelming majority of tenants are not paying vastly more money [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] It is no good saying "Rubbish". The facts are quite clear.

Mr. Heffer: Come to Liverpool.

Mr. Channon: I do not need to go to Liverpool to tell the House the facts. Hon. Members know perfectly well that the maximum amount of increases were laid down in the Housing Finance Act. No one can be compelled to pay more. The misleading and utterly ridiculous propaganda put out by the Opposition is designed to cause upsets to tenants, most of whom are now beginning to learn the truth.

Mr. Freeson: The Minister began by saying that he was in no position to provide this information at a reasonable cost or in reasonable time, but he then went on to say quite confidently that the facts we have been putting forward about rent increases are inaccurate. If the Minister has not obtained this informa-

tion, how does he know that that is the case? Will the hon. Gentleman use his powers under Section 105 of the Act to put a stop to further rent increases in the coming year? The powers are there. Will he use them?

Mr. Channon: I complain about what hon. Gentlemen opposite say because they talk about vast increases when they know that the absolute maximum limits of rent increases are laid down in the Act. This is wholly misleading and utterly mischievous. What is more it is designed to be misleading. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I are determined to achieve a situation in which those who cannot afford to pay a rent will be protected by rent rebate. I think that everyone in the House will support that. We also believe that those who can afford to pay a fair rent—a system invented by the party opposite—should be required to do so.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the hon. Gentleman's replies, I beg to give notice that I shall seek an early opportunity to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Association Football (Crowd Safety)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he now hopes to announce his plans to implement the recommendations of the Wheatley Committee Report on Crowd Safety at Football Grounds.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department on 13th December.—[Vol. 848, c. 173.]

Mr. Dalyell: Now that it is almost two years to the day since that melancholy afternoon at Ibrox Park, does anyone seriously dispute the minimum recommendations of the Wheatley Committee on Safety? Is not the question not so much can we afford to do it as can we afford not to do it?

Mr. Griffiths: I am sure that the whole House is well aware of the tragedy at Ibrox Park and the Report of Wheatley Commission, which has been discussed fully by my own Department and by the Home Office. I have told the hon.


Gentleman, and I repeat, that legislation is to be introduced as soon as possible by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. Ewing: Is the Minister aware that there are many football clubs in Scotland—not least the Falkirk club, about which I am in contact with the Secretary of State—which want to modernise their grounds but are afraid to go ahead until they see the form and type of legislation that the Minister talks about publishing as soon as possible? When is "as soon as possible" likely to be?

Mr. Griffiths: I shall be surprised if any football club seeking to modernise its ground is inhibited by the Wheatley proposals. I hope that every club in Scotland, England and Wales will recognise that the modern trend in sport is towards participation and not just watching. In whatever they do for their grounds, I hope that they will have regard to multi-purpose facilities on the grounds.

Tinsley Viaduct

Mr. Duffy: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if the Tinsley Viaduct has now been treated for aspergillus fumigatus.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: A contract for the removal of this fungus is about to be let.

Mr. Heffer: It should have been sprayed on that lot on the Government benches.

Mr. Duffy: Bearing in mind that this matter was debated in the House six months ago, is not this an unwarrantable delay? May I ask the hon. Gentleman three questions? Are these fungus spores airborne? Do they present a health hazard not only to maintenance personnel but to others living in the vicinity? Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that there will not be a recurrence?

Mr. Griffiths: Without notice, I cannot say whether the fungus is airborne. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the contract will bring about a procedure for scraping, brushing and vacuuming the facility in question. There is no health hazard in the vicinity.

Mr. Hardy: The Minister seemed to dismiss lightly the question whether this fungus was injurious. Does he realise that my constituency is very close to the

Tinsley Viaduct? Can we have a categorical assurance that there is no health hazard to the South Yorkshire area surrounding the Tinsley Viaduct?

Mr. Griffiths: On that count, Yes, Sir.

Attendance Allowance (Rate Rebate)

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will introduce legislation to amend the General Rate Act 1967 to permit exemption of constant attendance allowance payments from calculation of gross income for the assessment of eligibility for rate rebates.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I must ask the hon. Member to await legislation to reform local government finance.

Mr. Whitehead: While the House awaits that legislation local authorities are hiding behind the lack of exemptions in the General Rate Act 1967 to charge people who receive constant attendance allowance a sum if their gross income has gone up, which takes away with one hand that which this House has given with the other in the form of the constant attendance allowance. Is not that an absurd situation?

Mr. Griffiths: My right hon. and learned Friend is in close touch with local authorities about this matter, and we are sympathetic to the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. However I think that he must await the legislation on local government finance which has been promised for this Session.

Leasehold Reform Act 1967

Mr. Woodhouse: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if, on the completion of new valuation lists under Section 68 of the General Rate Act 1967, he will introduce legislation to remove the limitations in terms of rateable values from Section 1 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: No, Sir. This is not necessary. The rateable value determining whether or not a dwelling is within the provisions of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 is, for houses which were then built, the one shown in the valuation list on 23rd March 1965.

Mr. Woodhouse: Will not my hon. Friend recognise, regardless of his reply, that all I am asking of him is the fulfilment of a pledge given by the Conservative Party Front Bench spokesman while in opposition?

Mr. Griffiths: Without notice of it, I am not clear which is the point to which my hon. Friend is referring. But I shall be glad to take it up with him and to get my right hon. and learned Friend to reply in detail.

Mr. Allason: Is my hon. Friend aware that during the Committee stage of that Bill this disqualification of higher-rated properties was removed and that it was only put back for some peculiar reason on Report in spite of the almost unanimous wish of the Committee?

Mr. Griffiths: My hon. Friend will recognise that this Act is by no means of our devising. Nevertheless, we are confronted with the situation that there is this arbitrary rateable value limit of £200 outside London, and it is difficult to change it since so many transactions have taken place under the existing provisions.

Freshwater Group (New Leases)

Mr. Tugendhat: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is aware that the Freshwater Group is offering new leases at increased rents during the period of the freeze; and if he will take action to prevent this.

Mr. Channon: The Freshwater Group has assured us that as soon as it knew of the contents of the order on rents, it took immediate steps to comply with it.

Mr. Tugendhat: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and I am grateful for the letter that he was kind enough to send me dealing with the problem. May I press him a little further? Since I tabled the Question, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has intervened in the gas dispute, and it is becoming clear that wage negotiations are not to be carried to the point of a specific offer. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is right, therefore, that rent increases should not be carried to the point of a specific offer? May I also ask my hon. Friend for an assurance as to both regulated and unregulated tenancies in phase two in

the light of what has been said about wage negotiations?

Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend will not expect me to anticipate what will happen in stage two. That is a matter that my right hon. and hon. Friends will be considering. I shall note my hon. Friend's view.
As to what should take place in the standstill, I refer my hon. Friend to the terms of the Counter-Inflation (Rents) Order. This does not stop the machinery of the fair rents system because of the great confusion that it would cause and because of the tremendous pile-up of cases that would result. In my view the case to which my hon. Friend refers is analogous to that for regulated tenancies.

Mr. Frank Allaun: How can the Minister talk about counter-inflation and about curbing prices when next year he will have a deliberate and unnecessary rise in the rent of hundreds and thousands of working-class families?

Mr. Channon: This is a matter that we should and no doubt will debate. However it does not arise out of this Question.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: The Freshwater Group, having been told that it was morally offending the spirit if not the letter of the law, has now withdrawn an offer made to one of my constituents of £1,350 and has said that the rent will now be £2,000. What steps can my hon. Friend take to stop this gazumping of £650 in three weeks by the Freshwater Group?

Mr. Channon: I cannot comment on an individual case without having the details. I am assured by the Freshwater Group that it is complying in every way with the terms of the Counter-Inflation (Rents) Order and the legal obligations imposed upon it. If my hon. Friend has evidence to the contrary, I hope that he will produce it.

Mr. Crosland: It is not simply a matter of complying with the terms of the Counter-Inflation (Temporary Provisions) Act. Will the hon. Gentleman recognise—what I thought we demonstrated clearly when discussing the Act—that by far the largest majority of private tenants are not covered by any provisions in the Act?


They are in fact effectively outside the scope of the Act. Will he look at this matter again? While wages are coming under more and more severe pressure, private rents are substantially outside the Act.

Mr. Channon: I do not agree that private rents are substantially outside the Act. In the debate we gave a whole list of categories of people who are included. Naturally I will consider any representations that the right hon. Gentleman cares to make in both this and, indeed, any other context.

Housing Finance Legislation (Implementation)

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the names of the local authorities which are still refusing to implement the Housing Finance Act, the names of those councils for which the Government Auditor is taking or has taken an extraordinary audit, and the names of the local authorities where a housing commissioner has been instructed to take over the housing responsibilities.

Mr. Channon: The London Borough of Camden and the urban district councils of Clay Cross and Conisbrough are the only English authorities not implementing the Act. An extraordinary audit of the Housing Revenue Accounts of Clay Cross and Conisbrough is in progress. No housing commissioners have been appointed in England.

Mr. Wainwright: Why is not the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend playing fair and just with every local authority in England, Wales and Scotland? Why have Merthyr Tydfil, Bedwas and Machen had housing commissioners appointed to them while authorities in England have not? If the Act is so fair and just, why do not the Government appoint housing commissioners so that they can carry out the Act immediately?

Mr. Channon: My responsibility extends only to England. No housing commissioners have been appointed in England, and my right hon. Friend will be reluctant to appoint them. I understand that it is the general view of the House that commissioners should be appointed only as a last step.

Mr. George Thomas: With great respect to what the hon. Gentleman said, is not the Government's policy the same in England as in Wales? Does not exactly the same Act apply to both countries? Can the hon. Gentleman explain why the Government adopt one policy in Wales and another in England?

Mr. Channon: The Housing Finance Act applies to England and Wales, but not to Scotland. My right hon. Friend has to judge what is the best situation in Wales. As I understand it, the hon. Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Edwin Wainwright) is suggesting that we should adopt the Welsh practice, but I think the right hon. Gentleman's view is that he should adopt the English practice.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment on what date the first notification arrived at his Department from the Clerk of the Conisbrough Urban District Council, saying that that council would not implement the Housing Finance Bill or Act; and if he will make a statement as to why he has not acceded to that local authority's request that a housing commissioner should be appointed to take over its housing responsibilities.

Mr. Channon: 24th August. It is the duty of local authorities to carry out the housing responsibilities laid on them by Parliament. The action to be taken against local authorities in default depends in each case on the particular circumstances. My right hon. and learned Friend is under no obligation to appoint a commissioner.

Mr. Wainwright: But what do the Government expect to achieve by the action they have taken? What is the objective behind it? Is it to try to make certain that local authorities are in the position that no local councillors want to take over the responsibility? Why did not the Government, at the request of the council, send a housing commissioner to Conisbrough so that the Housing Finance Act could be put into operation? Is it true that it was a low, mean and squalid action by the Government to try to compel councillors to do a job which they think they are not warranted to do?

Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. Local authorities have some statutory duties imposed


upon them by Parliament, and it is the duty of local authorities to comply with them. They cannot pick and choose between statutory duties and decide to abide by some which they like and not to carry out those which they do not. Local authorities have a duty to abide by all statutory obligations placed upon them.
Only three local authorities in England are not implementing the Housing Finance Act. I very much hope that in the interests of everyone concerned local authorities will abide their statutory duties. I hope, too, that the hon. Gentleman will use his good influence to persuade his urban district council to abide by its statutory duty.

Mr. Stallard: What criteria did the hon. Gentleman use in the exercise of his discretion under the Housing Finance Act not to send a housing commissioner into Camden council but to try instead to blackmail the council by his threat to withdraw all housing subsidies?

Mr. Channon: There is no question of blackmail. There are many housing authorities in England, and only three are in default of their duties under the Housing Finance Act. It is the duty of local authorities to comply with their statutory obligations, and anyone who tries to take a different view is doing a great disservice to his constituents and to the local authority concerned.

Sea Bed (Gravel Dredging)

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what facilities he has available to control and supervise the activities of dredgers dredging for gravel from the sea bed.

Mr. Channon: None, Sir. Licences granted by the Crown Estates Commissioners for dredging gravel from the sea bed define the areas to be dredged and impose limits on quantities to be removed.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the concern felt by the Solent Protection Society and others about what may be the long-term effects if dredging is carried on outside the areas and limits properly allocated?

Mr. Channon: I note what my hon. and gallant Friend has said. I have heard of a number of complaints. This is pri-

marily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and I shall draw his attention to my hon. and gallant Friend's comments.

Palace of Westminster (Car Park)

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the latest estimate of the cost of the current works at the Palace of Westminster associated with the underground car park.

Mr. Channon: £2·2 million.

Mr. Grimond: Is not this a bad example of estimating, as the original estimate was £1·3 million? Is it not also a bad example of the choice of priorities in the London area for the House of Commons to spend this vast amount of money on a car park?

Mr. Channon: The estimate is the same as the original sum. There has been no increase in the original estimate. The original figure was £2·2 million, and that is the estimate now. The contract is a firm price one. I know of no reason why costs should increase. This was a decision of the House of Commons, not of the Government.

Mr. Marten: Is my hon. Friend aware that the affair of the car park will probably mean that people will vote for the new office block opposite, which is no doubt a very good thing?

Mr. Channon: There are divided views in the House about the new office block.

Mr. Lipton: Are not the Government well bogged down in the mud over the whole project? Has the hon. Gentleman seen figures which suggest that the capital cost per car parked will amount to £10,000?

Mr. Channon: I think that that is an exaggeration. I have the figures and perhaps I could give them on the next Question, which is more relevant. But whatever the figures are, the House of Commons was told of them at the time of the debate. My right hon. Friend gave the House the facts and the House accepted them without a Division. The Government, are merely fulfilling the wishes of the House of Commons. I did not think of this project. It was the House of Commons Services Committee that did that.

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many cars the new underground car park at the Palace of Westminster will accommodate.

Mr. Channon: Rather more than 500.

Mr. Grimond: That is a fairly high cost per car. Does not the hon. Gentleman agree, in view of the Prime Minister's strictures about the build-up of traffic around Westminster, that it is desirable not to encourage more cars to come into this area? Has he considered giving vouchers for free travel on public transport to Ministers and Members of Parliament?

Mr. Channon: I estimate the cost per parking space to be about £4,450. The decision to build the car park was taken not by the Government but by the House of Commons, without a Division. Hon. Members who are criticising the project now did not vote against it when it was debated. On 13th June the House of Commons unanimously accepted the recommendation of the Services Committee that the car park should be built, and it is being provided to suit the convenience not of the Government but of hon. Members. The decision was taken in the full knowledge of the facts. The estimate has not been increased. I am merely carrying out the instructions given to my Department by the House of Commons.

Mr. Heffer: Is the hon. Gentleman slightly kidding the House? Is it not clear that this proposal was slid through by the Government without hon. Members really knowing, because of the wording, precisely what was involved? Will the hon. Gentleman now ask his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who is sitting near him, to give the House a clear and definite statement that in future there will be no more mucking around with the House of Commons without the House properly debating what is actually happening?

Mr. Channon: I do not accept that. The House had a full debate on the issue on 13th June. Those hon. Members who now criticise the project had the right to come to the House and vote against it on that occasion. If they chose not to exercise their right to do that they can hardly blame me.

Mr. Spearing: In spite of what the Minister has said, does he not recall that in that debate it was stated that the Government got the effective decision approved on a Friday morning, on the nod at 11 a.m., having put the matter on the Order Paper at 9 a.m.? Will he not now agree that that was a shameful, deceitful trick of the House?

Mr. Channon: No, the hon. Member is really going too far—

Mr. Spearing: No, it is true.

Mr. Channon: The hon. Member had a perfect opportunity, if he wanted to object to something in the House of Commons. We all know how these procedures work. If hon. Members do not like something, they speak and vote against it—

Mr. Spearing: We had two hours' notice.

Mr. Channon: It is a bit rough that I should be criticised in December for a decision that the House of Commons took unanimously in June.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

European Economic Community

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Minister for the Civil Service how many civil servants have now been recruited for service within the European Economic Community.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Civil Service Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker): So far the only appointments of civil servants have been to the cabinets of the two British Commissioners. Interviewing candidates for other posts in the Commission is continuing and further appointments will be made after we have joined the Communities.

Mr. Hamilton: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us why civil servants are so reluctant to take posts within the Community? Will he consider the protests which have been made by Aims of Industry and other bodies about the relative lack of business experience within the qualifications required? In view of the great importance of having business experience, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to take urgent steps to remedy this deficiency?

Mr. Baker: There is little reluctance among civil servants to apply for consideration for posts in Brussels.
On the hon. Gentleman's second point, I am anxious, as are the Department and the two British Commissioners, to attract people from outside the civil service—from industry, commerce, the trade unions and academic life—to go and work in Brussels. I assure him that interviews with people who have this experience are taking place.

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: How many women have been appointed? Will my hon. Friend ensure that we have a better proportion of women in the civil service in this area than we have in the higher reaches of the civil service at home?

Mr. Baker: I cannot accept the implied criticism of my hon. Friend's question. In fact, there are several women senior civil servants. I assure my hon. Friend that we are anxious to ensure that there will be quite a large number of women in the senior posts of British people who are going to Brussels.

Non-industrial Civil Servants

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government regarding future changes in the total number of non-industrial civil servants.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: To employ no more than are required to carry out efficiently the tasks laid upon the Civil Service.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: As my hon. Friend, like me, is committed to the reduction of this figure and as it has gone up considerably since 1970, may I ask by what date he expects the figure to be as low as it was in 1970?

Mr. Baker: On 1st July 1970 the total number of civil servants was 701,790. On 1st October 1972 the comparable figure was 690,985. Therefore, there has been a modest reduction.
My hon. Friend will recall that I have already told the House that in view of the increasing work particularly of the Department of Health and Social Security, the Inland Revenue and Customs and

Excise there will be increases in this figure.

Mr. Sheldon: Should not the hon. Gentleman be more honest with his hon. Friend and answer the question which he rightly put to him? Is it or is it not the Government's intention to reduce the numbers of non-industrial civil servants?

Mr. Baker: I have stated clearly the total number of industrial and non-industrial civil servants. I am very surprised that hon. Gentlemen opposite should try to retain the distinction between blue-collar and white-collar jobs. I assure the House that since taking office I have seen Ministers in each Department, I have reviewed their forecasts for the next two years, and substantial reductions have been made in those forecasts.

Mr. Marten: When my hon. Friend is briefed to give the answer to the question that has been asked, may I ask whether the numbers will include those who are in the cabinets? What does he mean by "cabinets"? Could he not use an English word?

Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend never gives up. British civil servants who are appointed to positions in Europe will no longer count as British civil servants. They will be employed by the respective bodies for which they work in the Community.

Mr. Sheldon: By his constant refusal to answer the question put to him by his hon. Friend the Minister has put himself in some difficulty. Is it not the fact that when the Government do not like figures they tend to fudge them in a number of areas? Are they now fudging them between industrial and non-industrial civil servants? These figures were always kept separate.

Mr. Baker: These figures are published every quarter. The hon. Gentleman knows they are published separately.

Mr. Sheldon: Tell us them.

Mr. Baker: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave giving the figures for 1st October. They are published separately. I make no pretence at trying to fudge the figures at all. We are proud of the efficiency with which we have attended to the problem of numbers in the civil service.

Computer Agency Council

Mr. Sydney Chapman: asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement on his plans for the Central Computer Agency to develop the use of computers in Government.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: We have decided to set up a Computer Agency Council, under my chairmanship, to advise on the development of automatic data processing in Government. The membership of the council will be drawn from industry, commerce, the nationalised industries, local authorities, and other sources, as well as from Government Departments. I will circulate the terms of reference and details of the membership in the OFFICIAL REPORT today.

Mr. Chapman: I very much welcome that statement. When does my hon. Friend hope that this Computer Agency Council will first meet, and will he confirm that security and confidentiality of information is of paramount importance?

Mr. Baker: Yes indeed. I intend to call a meeting of the Computer Advisory Council in January. I should stress that the Government are the biggest users of computers in this country, but we feel that we should keep in close contact with other big users of computers in the private sector.
Regarding confidentiality of information on computers, my hon. Friend may be aware that in the records of civil servants, which are now being computerised, we have virtually followed the recommendations of the Younger Report.

Mr. Kaufman: When considering the purchase of computers will the Government make a point of placing their orders with ICL, whose headquarters are at West Gorton in my constituency, and which badly needs the employment?

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman will know that on large computer orders the Government are following a policy of single tendering, and the single tender is in all cases placed with ICL.

Mr. Gurden: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is more than a suspicion that confidentiality has been abused?

Mr. Baker: Yes. This point goes rather wider than the Question. The House

will have to await the White Paper on the Younger Report. I am absolutely satisfied that there is complete confidentiality within the computerised records of civil servants.

Mr. James Hamilton: In his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) relating to ICL, will the hon. Gentleman give serious thought and consideration to the special development areas? Will he reconsider the situation about tendering, allow private firms the opportunity to tender, and place the order with the person who submits the lowest tender?

Mr. Baker: The policy for the support of the British computer industry is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industrial Development. However, I reaffirm that Government policy on single tendering to ICL will certainly be continued.

Mr. Biffen: Arising out of what my hon. Friend has just said in answer to the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman), may I ask whether he will assure the House that, notwithstanding any regulations or directives which may derive from the European Economic Community discouraging preferential tendering, it will still be Government policy to favour a British national computer industry?

Mr. Baker: I assure my hon. Friend that when we join the Community the British computer industry will not be in any worse position than the French or German computer industries. As my hon. Friend knows, there is considerable support from each of those Governments to their computer industries, and I assure him that we are very keen to ensure that British national interests are protected here.

Mr. Pannell: When the hon. Gentleman answered the supplementary question asked by his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, he began his answer by saying "Yes, indeed". This was on the subject of a breach of confidentiality. Anybody reading that answer in HANSARD tomorrow will think that the hon. Gentleman agrees with his hon. Friend. Will he now set that answer right? Does he agree that there is cause for thinking that there is a breach of confidentiality?

Mr. Baker: I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Sydney Chapman) asked two questions. My reply "Yes, indeed" was to the latter one. I must

(a) To advise the Minister for the Civil Service, as required, on the development of automatic data processing in Government; and

(b) To define areas where action is required by the Central Computer Agency, in conjunction as necessary with other organisations, to promote the efficient application of ADP systems in Government departments.

Membership: The following have agreed to serve on the Council:


Sir Brian Flowers, FRS
…
…
Chairman, Science Research Council


Mr. F. W. Gibson
…
…
Deputy General Manager, National Westminster Bank


Mr. P. M. R. Hermon
…
…
Group Management Services Director, British Airways Board


Mr. C. W. Mallinson
…
…
County Treasurer, West Sussex County Council


Mr. C. P. Williamson
…
…
British Petroleum


Departments will be represented by:


Mr. C. Wallworth
…
…
Ministry of Defence


Mr. K. R. Stowe
…
…
DHSS


Mr. J. W. de L. Nichols
…
…
Department of Trade and Industry


Mr. F. Cooper
…
…
Civil Service Department


Mr. S. W. Spain (Director, CCA)
…
…


Mr. M. S. Schreiber
…
…


Mr. R. D. Aylward (Secretary)
…
…

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS

Mr. Speaker: I have an announcement to make about Questions. I have made arrangements for the immediate implementation of those recommendations of the Report of the Select Committee on Parliamentary Questions to which the House agreed on Monday, with one exception. That exception is the recommendation, in paragraph 19 of the report, for limiting the number of Oral Questions that may be tabled. For administrative reasons I would not propose to begin to apply this limitation until after the rising of the House on Friday.
Details of the manner in which the recommendations will be implemented will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the details of the arrangements.

A. Limitation of numbers of Oral Questions
1. There will be no change in the existing arrangements in respect of Oral Questions handed in up to the rising of the House on Friday. All Oral Questions handed in thereafter will be checked with those already on the Order Book and, if found to exceed the permitted limit, will be unstarred in accordance with the practice laid down in the Appendix to the Select Committee's Report. The new system will thus become fully operative in the Order Paper appearing on 5th February. At this date, the separate publication of Part I of the

make it absolutely clear that I am certain there has been no breach of confidentiality.

The following are the terms of reference:

daily White Order Book, which has been a direct consequence of the present arrangements, will be discontinued.
2. I would invite Members who, after Friday, submit several Oral Questions together, if they are in any doubt as to whether their personal limit is likely to be exceeded thereby, in their own interest to indicate on the Questions the relative priority of importance which they attach to them.
3. In accordance with the terms of the Committee's recommendation, to which the House has agreed, the new arrangements are experimental and will lapse at the end of the Session, unless the House should otherwise resolve.

B. Written Questions

4. All ordinary unstarred Questions (unless dated for the next sitting day) will now be set down on the Notice Paper for written answer on the next sitting day but one. From the rising of the House on Friday, this will apply also to starred Questions (however dated) found to be in excess of the permitted individual limit.
5. The new provision for "priority written" Questions also comes into effect forthwith. Its implementation requires that any such question should bear both the letter "W" and a date in accordance with the period of notice laid down in the amendment to S.O. No. 8 to which the House has agreed. I have instructed the Table Office to treat questions marked with a "W" but not given a specific date, or dated too early to satisfy the requirement of notice, as if they were ordinary unstarred Questions.

C. The form and contents of Questions

6. I have instructed the Table Office to begin immediately to act in accordance with


the recommendations contained in paragraphs 7, 8 and 24 of the Select Committee's Report.
7. I have for myself carefully noted the Recommendations and opinions expressed in paragraphs 10, 25 and 29 of the Report. In respect of the recommendation in paragraph 10, while I shall continue to have regard to the basic rules concerning the form and contents of Questions which are set forth in pages 323–9 of Erskine May, I shall not consider myself bound, when interpreting these rules, by the restrictiveness of any previous individual rulings.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Harold Wilson: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for the week after the recess?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. James Prior): Yes, Sir.
The business for the week when the House resumes will be as follows:
MONDAY, 22ND JANUARY—Debate on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Reports from the Select Committee on Science and Technology, Session 1971–72, and the relevant Government Observations (Command Nos. 5176 and 5177).
Remaining stages of the Sea Fish Industry Bill.
Motion on the Fishing Vessels (Acquisition and Improvement) (Grants) (Amendment) Scheme.
TUESDAY, 23RD JANUARY—Second Reading of the Furnished Lettings (Rent Allowances) Bill and of the Fire Precautions (Loans) Bill.
Motion on the Northern Ireland (Border Poll) Order.
WEDNESDAY, 24TH JANUARY—Supply (5th allotted day). Debate on a subject to be announced.
THURSDAY, 25TH JANUARY—Second Reading of the Atomic Energy Authority (Weapons Group) Bill [Lords], until seven o'clock.
Motion relating to Merchant Shipping Regulations.
FRIDAY, 26TH JANUARY—Private Members' Bills.

Mr. Wilson: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that there will be a statement on steel tomorrow? Second, in

relation to the business on Thursday 25th January, will he also confirm that the Atomic Energy Authority (Weapons Group) Bill [Lords] deals only with the transfer—important though it is, on which there will be many views—of weapons establishments from the Atomic Energy Authority to the Ministry of Defence, and does not raise questions on a wider nuclear issue?

Mr. Prior: I confirm what the right hon. Gentleman said on the latter point. On the former, the Secretary of State will be making a statement on steel tomorrow afternoon.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: In view of the Government's continuing campaign of terror against the Press, and in view of the fact that the police have used telephone tapping and blackmail to get information, when shall we have a statement from this Government and a debate about their intentions over the implementation of the Franks Committee Report on the Official Secrets Act?

Mr. Prior: The hon. Member has from time to time made accusations which have proved totally false in this respect. I understand that he has written to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on this matter. My right hon. Friend is asking the Metropolitan Commissioner of Police for a report.

Mr. Fell: Arising out of what happened in the other place, has my right hon. Friend had time since last week to consider more carefully the situation regarding family planning and the statement made by his right hon. Friend last week? Will he find time to discuss this matter in the House of Commons, where it ought to be discussed?

Mr. Prior: I do not think, after what has happened in another place, that there will be any difficulty about discussing it in the House on Second Reading.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us why it is that 1972 has been a fallow year in so far as an agricultural debate is concerned? Does he recollect that it was in June 1971 that we last discussed the affairs of this vital industry? How soon shall we have a debate on this matter?

Mr. Prior: I can only presume that everyone is so satisfied with the state of


agriculture that they have decided that there is no need for a debate.

Dame Irene Ward: With regard to the business on 22nd January, after the first matters, and the remaining stages of the Sea Fish Industry Bill, am I right in assuming that we shall discuss the subsidies for the fishing industry? At what sort of hour shall we have once more to begin discussing fishing matters? We who represent fishing ports are a little worried about the late hour of the night that we have to discuss fish. Is it necessary to put this order down for that night? Or did I misunderstand my right hon. Friend? I am willing to be co-operative, but I like to know where I stand.

Mr. Prior: I know my hon. Friend's interest in the fishing industry. We had the Second Reading of the Bill at a very reasonable time, and I do not think there are many points to be raised on the remaining stages. The Fishing Vessels (Acquisition and Improvement) (Grants) (Amendment) Scheme arises out of the need to obtain this measure quickly. It is an important one for the fishing industry.

Mr. Kaufman: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us when we may expect the Manchester caravan site designation order, bearing in mind that the implementation of that order as a matter of urgency is of great importance to large numbers of my constituents?

Mr. Prior: I am sorry but I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an answer to that off the cuff. I shall have the matter looked into and write to the hon. Gentleman about it.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Can my right hon. Friend say when the debate on the new parliamentary building is likely to take place? May we have a whole day on this subject? When we debate it will the Government bear in mind that because of entering Europe we may have to have another look at this, as extra Committee Rooms may be required for European Parliament purposes, and we have to provide for that somehow or other?

Mr. Prior: I should like to find time for a debate as soon as I can, but I am afraid that it will not be in the first few weeks after we return.

Mr. Russell Kerr: When shall be have a debate on the recent report of the Select Committee which inquired into the Independent Broadcasting Authority, which has important implications for the future of broadcasting in this country?

Mr. Prior: I hope that it will not be very long before the Government's reply to the Select Committee will be available and, after that, in due course it will have to be one of those committee reports which can be taken for debate when time is available.

Mr. Ross: Will the Leader of the House say when the Government will be giving their conclusions about the reestablishment of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs? Secondly, I presume that in the week in which we return we shall be starting the Committee stage of the Local Government (Scotland) Bill. Can the right hon. Gentleman say now the size of the Committee? Will he give an assurance that it will be big enough—about 39 hon. Members—to ensure that the Liberal Members will be there of their own right?

Mr. Prior: On the latter point, I thought that there had been some consultation. So far I have not been a party to those consultations. I shall make further inquiries into that matter.
On the point about the setting up of the Select Committee, I have had some consultations, which are not yet complete, but I shall certainly be in a position to give the House more information about this immediately on our return.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Will my right hon. Friend say whether the House would be recalled if there were any threat of a further large-scale influx of Asians from East Africa?

Mr. Prior: That is a hypothetical question, which I hope will not arise.

Mr. Lipton: Will the Leader of the House take note of the motion which I placed on the Order Paper on 31st October asking the Government to ban the export of live animals? Will he provide half a day, after we resume, for a debate on this subject, on which so many hon. Members have very strong views?

[That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to replace the export trade in live cattle by a carcase trade, as recommended by the Balfour Committee 15 years ago.]

Mr. Prior: No. I think that this is very much a matter for private Members' motions. I would only say to the hon. Gentleman that the Government's policy is that we much prefer the export of meat in carcase form to that in live animal form.

DIPLOCK COMMISSION (REPORT)

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. William Whitelaw): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
The Report of the Commission chaired by Lord Diplock to consider changes in the administration of justice to deal with terrorists is published today and is now available in the Vote Office.
The Government wish to express their gratitude to Lord Diplock and the members of the Commission for the speed with which they completed their task. The questions raised in their terms of reference were wide ranging and controversial, but urgency was dictated by the situation in Northern Ireland, and the Commission has achieved it remarkably.
The Commission finds that, no matter what changes are made in the administration of justice, so long as there is the current level of intimidation of witnesses which prevents people from giving evidence in criminal trials for fear of the consequences, it will be impossible to bring to trial all those involved in terrorism, and particularly those who direct and plan terrorist activities; the Commission concludes that some form of detention apart from the process of criminal trial will continue to be necessary until intimidation can be ended. The Commission points out that the new procedures for detention, made in the Detention of Terrorists (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, contain valuable safeguards against unfair detention.
The Commission takes the view that the need for detention would be reduced if, during the present emergency, a number of changes were made in the adminis-

tration of justice. These include the introduction of trial by a judge alone instead of by a jury for terrorist offences; restrictions on the granting of bail for terrorist offences; alterations in the onus of proof in cases involving possession of firearms or explosives; new rules to govern the admissibility as evidence of confessions and written statements in trials of terrorist offences; and provision of secure accommodation for, and changes in the powers to sentence, juveniles involved in terrorist activities.
The Commission also recommends that the Army should have a power of arrest which would be easier for it to operate than its existing powers. The Government welcome these proposals which will, among other things, mean that it should be possible to bring more people before the criminal courts charged with criminal offences which arise out of alleged terrorist activities and, therefore, accept the recommendations in principle and will bring forward for consideration legislation to give effect to them.
The Government are also continuing their review of the Special Powers Act and Regulations and will bring forward proposals.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: This report has only just been published, and on such an important matter time will be required for detailed study of the conclusions, particularly those that recommend trial without jury, changes in the confession rules, and that which would give the armed Services power to arrest.
Is the Secretary of State aware that the Diplock terms of reference are only one part of a wider issue in Northern Ireland? Will the Government give the House the opportunity to consider the whole question of terrorism in the wider context of the White Paper, of a Bill of Rights and of the results of the review of the Special Powers Act, which was promised—I think that is the right word——by the Prime Minister in March, when direct rule was introduced? How is the review proceeding? May we expect the results in the White Paper? Surely it is not possible to consider Diplock until the result of the review of the Special Powers Act is known to the House.
Does the Secretary of State realise that if the Northern Ireland (Border Poll) Bill is of vital interest to the majority,


the ending of the Special Powers Act and a Bill of Rights matter to the minority and to moderates in both communities? Would not there be a more realistic and understanding attitude to the serious problems with which Diplock seeks to deal, particularly intimidation, if the people of Northern Ireland were aware first of the Government's plans for the long-term future of the province?
Finally, is the Secretary of State aware that we note that the Government intend to act on Diplock through legislation and that we welcome this, as it will provide an opportunity for the House to discuss its details in a way that was not possible on the recent order dealing with terrorists, which was itself a temporary matter?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I agree with him about the importance of studying this report before making any further detailed comments. It is important that it should be studied because, in making his recommendations, Lord Diplock produces some very important arguments in favour of them which it is right for all right hon. and hon. Members to study before coming to their own particular conclusions.
As for what the hon. Gentleman said about the review of the Special Powers Act and a Bill of Rights, the Government have made it perfectly clear that we are considering both these matters in the context of the White Paper and, indeed, of the future of Northern Ireland. As I said, I think, a week ago, and I confirm today, I have learned by considerable experience now that it is wrong to be committed to any particular course of action at any stage in Northern Irish affairs. I do not intend to become so. I note what the hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Stratton Milts: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the people of Northern Ireland would thank Lord Diplock for both the report and the very remarkable speed with which it has been produced? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that, while one regrets the circumstances in which these kinds of arrangements are necessary, nevertheless the report makes clear that it is the circumstances of intimidation, in both the North and the South, that requires these arrangements? Although the report will have to be

studied, nevertheless at first glance these arrangements seem a sensible and practical compromise.

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As he says, it is certainly a most important report and, indeed, one which in many respects it would be very important to see implemented at an early date. That is why I shall not commit myself one way or the other as to particular stages as we proceed from now on.

Mr. Thorpe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that whilst one of the first priorities must be the apprehension and conviction of terrorists, equally we want to retain all basic safeguards against the possibility of wrongful conviction, and, that being so, we shall need to look very carefully in detail particularly at a change in the admissibility of evidence outlined in the statement? May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider two matters? First, is he satisfied that there is adequate right of legal representation, which has not always been the case at any rate so far as tribunals are concerned in Northern Ireland; and secondly, is he satisfied that there are adequate legal aid provisions so that persons who are apprehended will have adequate legal representation?

Mr. Whitelaw: These are very important matters, and in the context in which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned them we shall consider them most carefully. It is important to look at any such proposals of Lord Diplock and, indeed, the Detention of Terrorists (Northern Ireland) Order tribunals in the context of the number of people charged with security offences before the courts. Since 31st July, 492 people have been charged in the courts, perfectly normally, with security offences in the ordinary course of law. That is a very considerable achievement and it is important in the context of action against terrorism.

Mr. Fitt: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that people in Northern Ireland had understood that the Diplock Commission was inquiring into ways of abolishing the Special Powers Act and replacing it with other legislation? What the right hon. Gentleman announced this afternoon will continue the hateful and more obnoxious powers of the Special Powers Act, this legislation running in


parallel with the Detention of Terrorists (Northern Ireland) Order. Can he give any reason why it is hoped to give to the Army further powers of arrest and detention? Why should they be enlarged? Have they been unsatisfactory? Has there not been co-operation between the Army and the police? Thirdly, and most important, when is it proposed to repeal the Special Powers Act? When will the right hon. Gentleman introduce some other form of legislation so that this obnoxious Draconian legislation can finally be taken off the Statute Book in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Whitelaw: I hope the hon. Gentleman, who is always fair in these matters, will read and consider the report carefully. It is only part of the whole issue of the Special Powers Act, which is a far wider provision. When he considers the provisions of the Detention of Terrorists (Northern Ireland) Order I hope he will recognise, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, in another place and as has been said consistently by people who study our legal procedures, that there is no doubt that the tribunals under the Detention of Terrorists (Northern Ireland) Order are a much better way of proceeding than was internment by the executive. I think that is recognised by everyone who studies these matters. It is undoubtedly true.
As for the question of the Army's additional powers, all that is suggested —and I think that most people would feel this to be reasonable—is that there should be an opportunity, for the purposes of identification, for the Army to be allowed to have the power to arrest for four hours. This is important in the circumstances in Northern Ireland, and I do not think it infringes any basic rights.
As for when we shall end the Special Powers Act, we are reviewing it and we shall come forward with our proposals. As I think all hon. Members know, I am determined not only to commit myself as to exactly when these things will be done, but not to give an opportunity to people to assume—which they readily assume—that I have said things which I have not said. Therefore, I am very careful not to say anything at all.

Mr. Peter Archer: In view of the undertaking which the Secretary of State fairly gave to the House last week, that

the normal processes of criminal law would be used unless in a particular case there was some reason why they could not be appropriately used, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will consider providing that trial without jury should not be used except with the certificate of a judge in chambers and when there are difficulties entailed in the processes of ordinary criminal law?

Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate that what Lord Diplock is proposing is that such trials should be held only in respect of what are described as scheduled offences, which limits them very much. However, we shall consider the hon. and learned Gentleman's point.

Mr. McNamara: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a person charged with a scheduled offence may now, in the strange situation in Northern Ireland, be subject to three codes of law—detention under the Detention of Terrorists (Northern Ireland) Order, the possibility under the proposals of the Diplock Commission of alterations in the onus of proof and special procedure as to admissibility of evidence, and, thirdly, the normal criminal trial? This sort of proliferation of standards of offences which are based on a person's suspected or real political attitude is not a situation which we can readily accept and I hope that it will be looked into very carefully indeed. What we are getting here is not an improvement in the situation which exists under the Detention of Terrorists (Northern Ireland) Order but a halfway stage between that and what now exists in the Republic. None of them is in any way satisfactory. We want to get back to the proper procedures.

Mr. Whitelaw: I should have thought that there was nobody either in this part of the United Kingdom or in Northern Ireland, who would not agree that the need to get back to normal procedures was paramount. But the need to get back to a normal situation is more paramount still in Northern Ireland. I hope that when the hon. Gentleman talks about changing the onus of proof he will appreciate that the proposals in the Dip-lock Report refer only to people charged with the possession of firearms or explosives. There is a very special reason for that, as I hope the hon. Gentleman knows. It is that if explosives are


found in a car and there are four people in it, it can be extremely difficult to decide which of those four persons knew that the explosives were there, and there are very good reasons why all four should at least be produced to give their own version of the case. They may all be acquitted after that has happened, but at least that proposal should be very carefully considered. It is not going as far as the hon. Gentleman suggests, and I hope that he will look very carefully at the arguments put forward by Lord Diplock.

Mr. Rose: While accepting that it is premature to comment in detail on the proposals, may I ask the Minister whether he will accept that at first sight they give some cause for concern and that we shall want to study them in detail?
Will he tell the House how the scheduled offence, which is concerned with terrorism, is to be distinguished in any way from the offence of murder, of which there are more than 100, representing one-sixth of the deaths which have taken place in Northern Ireland over recent months, which apparently had a sectarian motive, and can he say whether he has any evidence that these murders were connected with terrorist organisations? Does he appreciate that many people share the fears which have been expressed by my hon. Friend in that we are now adopting two standards of murder, according to whether the murderer was a member of a terrorist organisation or not?

Mr. Whitelaw: That point will be carefully considered. No doubt, the hon. Gentleman will read the report carefully and will study all the points raised in it. In considering these various proposals, one is bound to say that one has to match the need, on the one hand, to preserve the standards of British justice throughout the whole of the United Kingdom with the need to recognise the very bestial and criminal nature of many of the acts which are taking place in Northern Ireland. To someone like myself who has to live with this all the time, when one realises what is taking place, finding the right balance is difficult and it cannot all be loaded on the side of those who are committing some very bestial offences indeed.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (COUNCIL OF MINISTERS)

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Davies): With your permission Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to tell the House of the principal developments in a series of meetings of the Council of Ministers which have taken place in recent days in Brussels.
These covered a wide range of issues, particularly in the fields of external commercial relations, agriculture and road transport.
The three acceding countries participated in these meetings to all intents and purposes as full members.
They were attended by several of my right hon. and hon. Friends, including the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Minister for Transport Industries.
The following were the main issues upon which the House would wish to be informed.
First, in the field of external relations, legal effect was given as from 1st January to the provisions of the Community's agreements with the non-candidate EFTA countries. Approval was given to the conclusion and signature of trade agreements with the Lebanon, Egypt, and, I am very glad to say, with Cyprus, the last named on terms which will safeguard Cyprus's major trading relationships with ourselves.
Agreement was reached to propose interim measures for countries of the Mediterranean with which the Community has agreements but where those agreements have not yet been adapted to take account of the enlargement of the Community. A negotiating mandate was approved for the Commission to institute negotiations for special trade agreements with India and Brazil.
Second, in the field of agriculture, a regulation which provides very satisfactorily for the implementation of the special protocol dealing with New Zealand was agreed. This regulation makes clear provision to allow for the full quantities of butter and cheese provided for in the protocol to be sold into the British market. It also provides for an annual


report by the Commission which will allow the Council to review annually the operation of these arrangements.
Compensatory amounts for apples and pears were agreed which will replace our import quota arrangements on 1st February.
Transitional arrangements for beef were agreed. The initial United Kingdom guide price to apply from 1st February to the end of March will be about £14·20 per live hundredweight for adult cattle, and about £17·60 for calves.
The same price levels will also apply to the Irish Republic, thus avoiding any change in the trading arrangements between our two countries. Intervention arrangements for beef were agreed to he provided in the future on a permanent basis.
Export restitutions for whisky are to be further discussed in the New Year with a view to adoption by 1st August. These should be within the framework of an overall policy for the Community on alcohol but if that policy were not finalised by 1st August then the restitutions would become payable as from that date as soon as the policy had been agreed.
It did not prove possible to reach agreement on the compensatory amounts for pigmeat, poultry and eggs or upon the transitional arrangements for sugar. These questions will be taken up again in January.
Third, in the field of transport, no decision was reached to adopt the common orientation previously agreed by the Six in relation to the weights and dimensions of lorries.
As the House knows, my right hon. Friend has always made it clear the United Kingdom found that agreed orientation unacceptable. He has undertaken to resume discussion in the New Year with a view to reaching a solution acceptable to all members of the enlarged Community.
The Six decided to continue for a further two years their experimental system of bracket tariffs and multilateral quotas for the carriage of goods by road between member States. We are not satisfied with the quota allocated to us for participation in these arrangements, and have made this known to the exist-

ing members. A work group is further to examine this matter in the New Year and to report to the Council of Ministers in the spring.
In addition to these matters, provision was made for the nomination of the president, vice-presidents and members of the new European Commission, which will take office in January; for the appointment of new judges and new advocates general of the Court of Justice; and for the appointment of new members of the Economic and Social Committee.
The Council prepared the decisions necessary under Article 2 of the Accession Treaty to adapt the institutional provisions to take account of the fact that Norway will not join the Community on 1st January.

Mr. Shore: The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has made a long and complex statement. That is inevitable, given the scope of the matters considered in the two days—at least—meeting held in Brussels. Is he aware that the one matter on which we all feel unambiguous satisfaction, the one part of his report which has given us some Christmas cheer, is that which relates to the non-agreement to introduce the Euro-lorry standards and dimensions with which we have been threatened until very recently. While the Minister for Transport Industries has reason to feel pleased with himself, I think he should feel, as we all should, that this is a victory for the House of Commons and for the British people rather than for our own negotiators in Brussels. It is the one matter out of all the subjects mentioned here on which the House of Commons had a prior opportunity to express its view.
On the other matters which are covered in the statement, may I put some questions to the right hon. Gentleman? The first question relates to the external trade arrangements. Are we now to have a further process throughout the machinery of Section 1(3) of the European Communities Act whereby we can consider in detail the trade treaties agreed with Cyprus and the agreements with the other Mediterranean countries? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Opposition feels some anxiety, particularly in pressing the Mediterranean trade policy of the Community before the opening of broader negotiations through GATT with the United States next year?
Second, on all these very complex matters relating to agricultural agreements I must confine myself to asking the right hon. Gentleman whether the effects of the New Zealand agreement, or of the new agreements on the price of cattle, will increase or stabilise the actual selling prices of butter and beef in the United Kingdom market in the period ahead.
Concerning the agreement on restitutions for whisky, am I right in believing that this simply means a delay in all agreements until this coming August?
Last, may I put to the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues the point that there is a very great problem for us all in trying to deal sensibly with so many matters all at the same time? I am half inclined to say to the right hon. Gentleman that his statement, which was inevitably lengthy, was really too short, because very many of those matters are touched upon only lightly in the statement while a number of others have been left outside it.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give the undertaking that he will consult further with his colleagues whether it is possible to make more frequent statements or to find some other way in which we can probe more sensibly these most important matters.

Mr. Davies: Taking the points which the right hon. Gentleman made in their order, I think he was a little uncharitable to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries on the subject of lorries. I think my right hon. Friend has consistently fought this general orientation through and through, and has done it with great power and determination.
Concerning the question of this being the only item on which a prior opportunity was given to express views, that will not prove to be the case when the right hon. Gentleman studies the statement in further detail. There are a number of matters here which have been under consideration in the House from time to time.
Dealing with his specific questions, the right hon. Gentleman asked whether the consideration of trade treaties, particularly with the Mediterranean countries, will be subject to scrutiny. That will be the case. Perhaps it is for the convenience of the House that a number of

those treaties willy-nilly are yet to be finalised, particularly in some cases the major negotiation, in other cases the adaptation provisions, so that opportunities will be made available, I hope, and will emerge through the machinery which the House is now content to devise.
So far as the Mediterranean agreements generally are concerned, I understand the right hon. Gentleman's anxiety that he should in no way imperil the major multilateral discussions on commercial arrangements due to take place this coming year. That point is very much in the minds of the Government and of the Community. The need to provide some kind of special agreements with the countries bordering the Mediterranean seems to be very important to the Community and, I am bound to say, to the Government.
I was asked about the effect of the decisions on the price of various commodities, particularly butter from New Zealand, and beef. The effect is unlikely to be considerable, so that we can expect little change resulting from these decisions. It is a question of delay with the whisky, as the right hon. Gentleman said. I feel concerned that this delay should take place. On the other hand, the problem of ensuring that a satisfactory alcohol arrangement policy for the Community as a whole is devised is of great importance to us, too. I agree that there are many matters but my only concern is that if I repeatedly come to the House to report seriatim the House will get tired of me.

Mr. English: No. We always like to see you.

Mr. Davies: Many issues are discussed. I believe the House will find that some of them are not worthy of its attention.

Mr. Powell: When my right hon. Friend next makes a statement of this kind to the House could he arrange at the same time to place perhaps in the Vote Office a clear analysis which shows in what form, if any, each of these decisions is to be implemented so that hon. Members can tell whether they will automatically come before the House in some formal way? Secondary to that, where that will not happen, will he say which of the subjects that have been covered


the Government think are appropriate to be discussed by this House before further proceedings or before proceedings are completed? Will he accept that, welcome though a report to the House is, with the opportunity for supplementary questions, it is not to be taken that the House has discussed or debated any of the matters contained in such a statement, because there was a misunderstanding of that character about the reports made in the course of the negotiations?

Mr. Davies: I think I am right in saying that practically the entirety of the matters to which I have referred today will be recorded in the Official Journal of the Community although I very much take the point my right hon. Friend makes and will certainly ensure in future statements, if any of the points involved are not recorded in the Official Journal, that some reference will be made to them. As for the point about previous consideration of a number of these matters, I believe that the House which is now organising itself to devise methods of scrutinising the many instruments which pass through the Community and its various councils and committees, will find the means to ensure that precisely what he wishes does take place. That is the purpose, as I understand it, of setting up this machinery. I take his point fully that these matters, some of which are of profound importance to many hon. Members, must not be regarded as having been fully debated on the basis of a statement being made.

Mr. Oram: Can the right hon. Gentleman say a little more about the timetable of this proposed trade treaty with the Community? While it may be true that from the Community's point of view trade arrangements with the Mediterranean are important, is it not the case that from the Common Market point of view a trade agreement with India is also highly important? Can we be assured that Her Majesy's Ministers will press this matter urgently in Brussels?

Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman can feel assured that the representatives from Britain did strongly press the Community to undertake this negotiation with India as part of a broad undertaking which the Community gave to consider negotiations for trade agreements on a bilateral basis between the Community and a certain

number of Asian countries. This matter is very much in our minds and we certainly have participated most actively in the discussion.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: May I put a specific point which illustrates the question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell)? The Minister mentioned the Mediterranean policy of the Community. He will know, in his capacity as the Duchy of Lancaster, that there is great worry in Lancashire about the importation of Turkish yarn under the Mediterranean policy. Shall we have the opportunity of at least discussing and perhaps deciding this question before very long?

Mr. Davies: The provisions which might be attached to the conclusion and adaptation of a trade agreement with Turkey for this purpose would clearly be a matter covered by the arrangements the House envisages for detecting the right point of time at which it wishes to involve itself in discussions on matters which the Community will consider. This, as I understand it, will be the purpose of these arrangements They will seek to identify those instruments, such as my hon. and learned Friend mentioned—and there are a variety—which the House would like to find a means of debating. Whether that would be done on the Floor of the House or through some other mechanism is a matter which I understand the House will wish to decide for the longer term. The whole of this matter is now in the form when it can be properly scrutinised.

Mr. Jay: Is not yesterday's decision on the allocation of lorry licences another serious threat to British interests? Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the Government will not accept the validity of those Continental licences until a proper agreement has been reached and reasonable allocations made to this country?

Mr. Davies: The position is that the Six had reached a common orientation on the subject of the allocation of these quotas. It converted that into a directive yesterday. That directive does not satisfy my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries. He has therefore said that he will not consider himself


bound indefinitely by that directive[Interruption.]—but that he will, while being, perforce, obliged to accept for the early months of next year the implications of this directive, require that there should be a working group appointed taking account of his objection to report by 1st April with a view to further discussion within the Council.

Mr. Biffen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that last answer gives rise to an interest which will attract the renewed attention of the House? May I refer to another item of his wide-ranging statement? Will he identify those factors which led to non-agreement on the restitution payments in respect of pigmeat, poultry and eggs, and will he say what he conceives to be the British national interest at stake in this arrangement?

Mr. Davies: The issues clearly relate to the level of compensatory payments to those who might supply in competition with our own producers a product from the Continent. The Commission has made proposals to the Council and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture was at the heart of these discussions, dealing with the level at which these compensatory payments should be set. At this stage no agreement was reached. That being so, the matter has been remitted for further discussion next month. I would remind my hon. Friend that the application of the agricultural policy becomes effective on 1st February, so that it is possible, and right, for my right hon. Friend to make the strong arguments which he made. I hope to reach a satisfactory settlement.

Mr. Biffen: What was the national interest?

Mr. Davies: We clearly try to ensure that the arrangements made are of a kind which allow the interests of our producers to be safeguarded.

Mr. Shore: Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say on the subject of the lorry licences that a directive has been agreed? Would I be right in thinking that this will have to be considered under the statutory provisions of the Act, under Section 2(2), in this House? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm—this arises from his reply to the hon. and learned Member

for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke)—that these trade treaties are considered to be Community treaties and are therefore to be separately approved under the procedure of Section 1 of the Act?

Mr. Davies: On the first point, the fact that I must make clear is that the directive was agreed among the Six but rejected by my right hon. Friend. [Interruption.] The implication of the question was that it was agreed by all. On the second question, on Community treaties, to the degree that the treaties are existing ones where the provisions to which I have referred relate to adaptation only on enlargement, the adaptation follows the provisions of the accession treaty and would certainly be subject to discussion, because everything is subject to discussion in this House, but not to previous discussion insofar as they have already been adapted.

Mr. Adley: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that we shall be the only country where aerospace and aviation are handled by a different Ministry from that handling transport generally? Would it not be advantageous if our aviation policy could be discussed together with transport policy, as appears to be done in the other Community countries and at the Council of Ministers?

Mr. Davies: I do not think that the exact disposition of responsibilities amongst Government Departments here would preclude our being able to discuss matters in the way that my hon. Friend describes. It is clear from our experience already that the discussions in the Council of Ministers can from time to time group different Ministers representing different interests at the same time if it so happens that the matter under discussion specifically covers an area of interest dealt with by more than one Minister. That arrangement is well provided for and is a normal part of the system.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Has the Chancellor of the Duchy seen the statement of the Minister for Transport Industries to the effect that in these discussions all animals are equal but that some animals are more equal than others? Exactly what did the right hon. Gentleman mean by that statement? Is he further aware that we shall want much more information about the talks on sugar and can he say any more about that this afternoon?

Mr. Davies: On the question of the licensing arrangements for lorry journeys, the point that my right hon. Friend was making was that he considered the basis on which the quota had been established to be unacceptable and incorrect. He therefore made his point exceedingly clearly. This still seems to be a matter of concern to the House, however, and I should like to allay that concern. My right hon. Friend called for and obtained agreement that the working group should be set up to re-examine the matter. That it will now do.
It is unlikely that we shall hear anything on sugar before the further discussions which are to take place next month on this subject.

Mr. Marten: Does my right hon. Friend regard the decision of the House not to allow any increase in the size and weight of lorries as a specific instruction to the Minister for Transport Industries that when he is in Brussels he may not exceed the authority which Parliament has given and that if he wishes to make a compromise he must come back and ask the House?
On New Zealand, my right hon. Friend's statement was, up to a point, welcome—of course we had it yesterday at Question Time—but did he, recalling Protocol 18, Article 5, Section 1(b) about fair trading for New Zealand, which I am sure he can recall, make representations to the Common Market authorities about the dumping of Community butter or the attempt to offer it at lower prices, thereby forcing New Zealand to make contracts at a lower price than it should have done? Did he raise this question?

Mr. Davies: On the first question, I am sure that my hon. Friend knows that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries is always exceedingly attentive to the wishes of the House and that he undoubtedly was on this occasion, as has been proved. I need not go into that matter more deeply, therefore. As for fair trading in butter, on the evidence there would seem to be good reason to believe that everybody—and it was my experience in the Council of Ministers—was exceedingly anxious to ensure that the provisions of the protocol as they apply to the outlet for butter were complied with. Naturally, the British representatives took their part in this and worked exceedingly hard.

Mr. Lawson: Will the Chancellor of the Duchy accept that we are all deeply concerned that he should safeguard Britain's proper interests, including, of course, the proper interests of Scotch whisky? When he goes to Europe will he always take with him the attitude which is the very reverse of dog-in-the-manger? Will he remember that he has very many wellwishers in the House, some of them on the Opposition side, who want to see our efforts in Europe very successful? We hope that he will appreciate, as we appreciate, that very soon we shall be alone in the world unless we build successfully our connections with Western Europe.

Mr. Davies: I should like unstintingly to give the hon. Member the assurances he seeks. Clearly it is the duty of the Government to ensure that the separate and individual interests of the many sections of the Community are protected and safeguarded in the discussions, and that we are seeking to do.

Mr. Redmond: Will the Chancellor of the Duchy tell us how and when the House will be informed about the names of the members of the Social and Economic Committee of the Community?

Mr. Davies: Yes. These matters will be dealt with in a formal manner on 1st January and the House will therefore get full information on the subject through the Official Journal of the Community which appears for that date.

Mr. Michael Foot: May we clear up the question of the licensing of lorries? Will he confirm that the situation is that the decision which has been taken by the Six has been to be found totally unacceptable by the Minister for Transport Industries—and we all congratulate him on holding that view—but that this country is nonetheless bound by the decision until the working party produces whatever report it may produce? Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that that is the position and also tell us in what form the House will be able effectively to assert its view on that question if it wishes to support the view of the Minister that the decision of the Six is unacceptable? How can we get out of the arrangement which has been imposed upon us?

Mr. Davies: The intention is clearly to make every possible use of the provisions which we currently have under these arrangements. The first thing which the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) should observe is that we shall obviously have room for considerable action now in this sphere. I am not too anxious on that score. As for scrutiny by the House, if as a result of the working group's recommendations the Commission comes forward with a recommendation to the Council, then, of course, that recommendation will be in the form of a Commission instrument, which will, subject to the arrangements which the House devises, be able to be identified as one in which the House would wish to participate. Discussion may then take place either within an appropriate committee or on the Floor of the House if that is the will of the House.

Mr. Clark Hutchison: Will my right hon. Friend explain a little more about the whisky arrangement? Is there any chance of our production being controlled from abroad or will it be left to us? Shall we be allowed to continue using North American and Canadian grain or shall we have to use Continental grain?

Mr. Davies: There is no question whatever of the production of Scotch whisky being controlled by other and alien interests. That is certainly my strong impression. As for the raw materials used, they will, of course, be chosen for their most appropriate qualities but in the light, needless to say, of the provisions of the Community agricultural policy.

Mr. English: The Minister will be aware that the Council of Ministers has both legislative functions, such as the transport law that we have been discussing and executive functions, such as the appointment of judges, as he mentioned. Is he aware that in so far as it is a legislature, it is the only one in the world which meets in private—other than a dictatorship? Since the Treaty of Rome does not so provide, will the Minister advocate within the Council that its proceedings on legislative functions are published? Secondly, since its rules and procedures provide only that it should meet in private, and that has been interpreted as meaning merely that the

members, such as the right hon. Gentleman, should not reveal their colleagues' views, will he publish verbatim his own views on legislative matters?
Finally, as the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned that it is the Official Journal in which the ultimate regulations will appear, will he consult the Leader of the House because at the moment we cannot obtain the Journal as of right but only by filling in an individual green form for every day of its issue, which is ridiculous.

Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman referred to the secrecy of the proceedings of the Council of Ministers. It is a fact that the submissions made by the Commission to the Council of Ministers are well known beforehand. Therefore, the basis on which discussion takes place is public knowledge. I do not think that it would be appropriate to publish my personal views on the matters which are discussed by the Council of Ministers. It would not be in the best interests of the country to do so. It would mean that we would reveal clearly our negotiating position before we went to negotiate. That is a course which I do not strongly recommend.
It would not be advantageous to do so afterwards. Undoubtedly the form of negotiation and the basis upon which we worked out our system would be revealed. We hope to be as adept as the others.
The hon. Gentleman's final point relates to matters concerning the Lord President. I should be happier if the hon. Gentleman would put that question to the Lord President rather than to me.

Mr. John Morris: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer two simple questions? Is the directive regarding the number of licences binding upon us? Secondly, if the other countries return to the present proposals on axle weights and total weights will this country use its veto?

Mr. Davies: I admit that I am not going to answer the hon. Gentleman's first question simply. I do not think that it would be conducive to helping my right hon. Friend to secure the result which he so strongly seeks, and which is identified with the interests of both sides of the House, if I were to do so. I am disinclined to do that.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the veto. If I may say so, that seems to be something of a misunderstanding. The veto as such is hardly meaningful. What is meaningful is the absence of consent to a key measure, which is, broadly speaking, sufficient to deter it effectively from being carried. It is as well to make that difference clear. There is a broad belief that it is a veto, but it is the failure of any party to give its consent which vitiates the passage of something of importance.

Mr. Edward Short: The first part of the right hon. Gentleman's reply to my right hon. Friend's question was incomprehensible. Is the arrangement about lorries binding from 1st January until a working party report is published and adopted, or is it not? Surely the right hon. Gentleman can tell us that.

Mr. Davies: I have answered that already. I said that the directive carried by the Six relating to quotas was an effective directive as far as the Community was concerned. It has been contested by my right hon. Friend, and it has been agreed to set up a working group which will report by 1st April. Until then it is something upon which we shall have to work. However, it contains no effective restraint on our capacity to operate.

Mr. Jay: On a point of order. Surely, as a matter of procedure, when we have been told by the right hon. Gentleman that there is a directive which comes into force on 1st January concerning lorry licences, we should at least be told clearly whether that will be the law of this country from 1st January. As it is a directive and not a regulation, does it not require an order from this House before it becomes law? Will the right hon. Gentleman answer those two questions as a matter of procedure?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter of order.

Mr. John Morris: On a point of order. I have asked a question about the law of the land on 1st January. The right hon. Gentleman has just told the House that he understands that in the meantime there will be no effective restraint upon this country. Would it not be in order for one of the law officers to come to the House and explain the position?

Mr. Speaker: When I was elected there was a reference to bogus points of order. The content of a Minister's answer is not a matter for me. I have allowed some 36 minutes on this statement. If the House is to be faced with a series of points of order like this at the end of a statement, then next time, as the matter lies within my discretion, I warn the House that I shall not give so much time.

Mr. John Mendelson: On a point of order. Is it not clearly emerging—I do not refer to the content of the statement which we have just heard—that when a statement is made of such complexity and dealing with so many matters, the Government should from now on be under a procedural obligation to arrange for an immediate debate linked to the statement made by the responsible Minister? These statements are now clearly different from the statements to which the House is accustomed. It should be laid down that the Government must arrange time for a debate linked to the statement on the same day.

Mr. Speaker: I must preserve the position of the Chair. This is nothing to do with me. This is a matter for the usual channels. It is a matter for the Leader of the House. It is not a matter of order for the Chair.

Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, In my submission, this is a matter for the Chair. Last night I wished to participate in the debate about the responsibility of the House regarding European affairs. I also wished to question the right hon. Gentleman about his responsibilities in Brussels. Many hon. Members have asked questions and there are only three of us left who wish to ask questions. I appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that you must protect the business of the House. But in protecting the back benchers of the House and their opportunity to question Ministers, would it not be in order for you to permit the three of us to put our points

Mr. Speaker: It would have been in order for me to call the hon. Member, but I did not do so.

Mr. Deakins: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, you have pointed out that in response to the statement you have very generously allowed 36 minutes of


questions, which by the normal standards is a generous ration of supplementary questions. But may I point out that if the right hon. Gentleman continues to be the only departmental Minister to make statements to the House, then he is making statements regarding a whole series of different subjects in Western Europe, which in effect, are presented under the guise of one statement. Today there have been at least three statements, which means that 12 minutes have been allowed for each statement, which is not particularly generous.

Mr. Speaker: That may or may not be a good point. However, it is a matter not for the Chair but for those who control the business of the House.

HOMELESS PERSONS (SHELTER REPORT)

4.39 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter of public importance namely,
The Shelter Report drawing attention to the hundreds and possibly thousands of persons who are homeless and sleeping in cars and on the streets who will he unable to spend Christmas Day and the Christmas period in their own homes or under any roof, and the refusal of Her Majesty's Government to give these people assistance in overcoming their problems.
I know that I cannot argue the merits of the question, but I believe that I am allowed to explain why the matter is specific and of urgent and public importance in the hope that I may persuade you, Mr. Speaker, to grant the motion.
The matter is most specific, because the report was circulated to every hon. Member only this week, and it draws specific attention to the serious problem of the homeless in London and the big cities. I really mean "homeless". Within a stone's throw of this House at night men and women are sleeping out on the embankment because they have no homes. That can be seen any

night of the week by any hon. Member who takes a short walk.
The matter must obviously be urgent, because my application refers to Christmas Day and the Christmas period. We have only today and tomorrow in which we can discuss the question before the Christmas Recess. It is most urgent that hon. Members should have an opportunity to discuss it before Christmas, to enable hundreds and possibly thousands of homeless people to have somewhere to go during Christmas rather than sleep out in cars, on the embankment and on the streets of London.
The matter is of public importance. I have approached all the Government Departments in an attempt to get something done about it. Every Minister, including the Prime Minister, has refused to do anything. A woman constituent of mine is homeless, and it is surely—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is abusing his right. We had a considerable debate on these matters on Friday, when he was not present.

Mr. Lewis: That is not possible, Mr. Speaker, because last Friday the report had not come out. I am referring to a report which has spoken of the specific matter of people sleeping in cars and on the embankment. With great respect to you, Mr. Speaker, last Friday I did not know what would he in a report that was issued on Monday: I did not know that on Monday I would receive a letter from a homeless constituent, and that the Prime Minister would refuse to do anything to rehouse her.
Therefore, I believe that the matter is of great importance, and that discussion should take place now, before the House goes into recess, to see that the homeless have a roof over their heads before Christmas so that they can enjoy the festive season.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman gave me notice of his intention to make this application. I have considered it, but both under the terms of the Standing Order, which I ask the hon. Gentleman to re-read, and in all the other circumstances of the case, I cannot grant his application.

TELEPHONE TAPPING

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: I rise on what I believe is a genuine point of order, namely, a statement which appeared in the Daily Mail this morning about telephone tapping, a statement which purported to come from the Home Office. There was a report in the Daily Mail yesterday that the numbers of telephone tapings in London had increased to 1,250 a year.
When I have tried to ask in the House Questions about the numbers of telephone tapings, and the authorised procedure for telephone tapping, the Table Office has told me that under the rules of the House I am not allowed to ask such Questions. It now seems that information which I cannot be given in the House, because of the Official Secrets Act and the rules of the House, is given to the Press. I submit that it is an abuse of the privileges of the House when I as a Member of Parliament cannot discover information, but a newspaper can.
I also submit, Mr. Speaker, that in a matter of great importance like this, when I have knowledge that even my telephone calls may have been tapped, the Home Secretary should at least make a state-

ment. May I ask for your guidance on the matter?

Mr. Speaker: I am not quite certain whether I detect a point of order for me, but I will consider what the hon. Gentleman said and if necessary rule upon it.

BILLS PRESENTED

FIRE PRECAUTIONS (LOANS)

Mr. Secretary Carr, supported by Mr. Secretary Campbell, Mr. Patrick Jenkin, Mr. David Lane and Mr. Eldon Griffiths presented a Bill to provide for the making of loans by local authorities to meet certain expenditure occasioned by the Fire Precautions Act 1971: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 48.]

GAMING (AMENDMENT)

Sir John Foster presented a Bill to extend Section 40 of the Gaming Act 1968 to gaming at clubs other than members' clubs, and to amend the provisions of that section relating to the sums which may be charged for taking part in gaming: And the same was read read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 26th January and to be printed. [Bill 49.]

ADJOURNMENT (CHRISTMAS)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House at its rising on Friday do adjourn till Monday 22nd January 1973.—[Mr. Prior.]

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Edward Short: I am not sure that we should agree to the motion. I am not sure that we can trust the Government, in view of their record, to run the country for four whole weeks with no Parliament to scrutinise its business day by day.
The Government have been in office for 21 years. They were elected on a fraudulent prospectus. In that 2½ years they have reduced the economy to a dangerous, parlous state. They have reduced millions of our fellow countrymen to poverty, and reduced industrial relations to an all-time low.
I have been re-reading that fraudulent prospectus. It is called of all things, "A Better Tomorrow". I want briefly to compare some of the promises with the record. Then hon. Members can decide whether they feel that the Government are to be trusted to govern for four weeks without a Parliament.
I shall make a number of quotations from "A Better Tomorrow", which was published in 1970. It said:
There were more strikes in 1969 than ever before in our history.
It is true that in 1969 6·8 million days were lost through industrial disputes. But up to October 33·3 million days had been lost through industrial disputes this year —four times as many—and most of those disputes were deliberately provoked by the Government.
The fraudulent prospectus said this about industrial relations:
We will introduce a comprehensive Industrial Relations Bill … It will provide a proper framework of law within which improved industrial relations between management, men
—that has a nice old-fashioned tang about it—
and unions can develop.
After two years, and after we have had the Industrial Relations Act, industrial relations are more soured, more embittered than ever. The law has been brought into disrepute, and we see a major

trade union being hounded by the Industrial Relations Court. What the Court is doing may well be legal, but it is contrary to all the principles of justice which have previously obtained in this country.
Thirdly, the false prospectus said:
Before the election,
—the 1966 election—
surplus and smiles. Afterwards, a headlong plung into deficit, devaluation and debt.
Let us look at the balance of payments. In 1969 there was a surplus of £444 million. In 1970 there was a surplus of £681 million—and that was the year in which the Prime Minister said that the trend was downwards. He knew that he was not speaking the truth when he said that in the election campaign. In 1971 we had the biggest surplus in our history, £1,040 million. It is estimated that this year there will be a £100 million surplus, and next year a deficit of £300 million. In addition, we have had a devaluation of at least 10 per cent.
Here is another quotation:
We will stop further nationalisation, and create a climate for free enterprise …
That was followed by the Rolls-Royce affair. I am in favour of nationalisation. I am simply comparing what the Government said with what they have done.
Next,
We will not go into Europe without the full-hearted consent of the British people.
The Government have made no attempt whatever to get either the full-hearted or any other consent of the British people to go into Europe.
Again:
We want an economy based on more jobs and lower costs.
The number of jobs in the United Kingdom between 1970 and 1971 fell by one-third of a million. Let us look at unemployment. Even accepting "fiddled" figures, on 13th November the unemployment figures in the North-West Region were 4·4 per cent., in the North Region 5·9 per cent., in Wales 4·8 per cent. and in Scotland 5·9 per cent. These figures are a dismal commentary on the Government's regional policy. In the manifesto the Conservatives said:
We will introduce effective regional development.


That is the result.
Again, the manifesto said:
We are not prepared to tolerate the human waste and suffering that accompany persistent unemployment, dereliction and decline.
The number of people who have been unemployed for six months or more in 1970 was 168,000—too many. In the third quarter of 1972 there were 303,000. The Tory Government have achieved the highest unemployment figures since the 1930s.
Another quotation—one of the choicest:
We will reverse the decline in building … make home ownership easier again …
We are now told that the number of houses built in 1972 will be the lowest since 1963. There will be 34,500 fewer council houses completed this year than in 1971, and we shall be lucky if on 31st December this year we end up with 1,000 more private houses than were built last year. I have taken those figures from The Guardian of 5th December.
Then there is the scandal of house prices. I took the trouble to telephone six estate agents in Sutton and Cheam. I was told that it was imposible to buy a semi-detached house with three bedrooms in Sutton and Cheam for less than £15,000. That figure is double what it was 12 months ago. I asked what mortgage would be available to a young couple with an income of £3,000 and I was advised to ring up a building society, which I did. I was told by the building society that if they were very lucky they would get £9,000 and no more. A salary of £3,000 a year is more than is earned by most people, but that young couple would have had to find a deposit of £6,000 to enable them to buy a three-bedroom semi-detached house. What a disgrace! Does that make home ownership easier?
The manifesto said:
We utterly reject the philosophy of compulsory wage control. We want instead to get production up.
Here we are, 2½ years later in the middle of a deep statutory freeze, buttressed by the Prime Minister's extra-legal activities.
Before the 1970 election the Conservatives said:
Britain now faces the worst inflation for 20 years. This is mainly the result of tax

increases and devaluation. In implementing all our policies, the need to curb inflation will come first.
What have we had under this Government? The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House bears a large part of the blame for it because he is the former Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. We have had the steepest rise in prices in any two years of our history. The index of all prices has gone up by 18·9 per cent.and food prices to October of this year have gone up by 22·5 per cent. Do we trust this Government to run the country for four weeks without Parliament?
I read in a local newspaper in Newcastle this weekend that the price of beef has reached an all time high. It has never been higher than it was in Newcastle this weekend, after 2½ years of Tory rule. Throughout the six years of the Labour Government the average rise in both indices was 5·1 per cent.—that is too high, but it is nothing compared with the increase under this Government. It is a phenomenal, almost Weimar-scale, inflation that has reduced old people and lower paid workers to poverty.
In the debate on the Queen's Speech I referred to a long queue of old-age pensioners in Tyneside who could never afford to go into the butcher's shop and were queueing to buy bones—after 2½ years of Tory rule. In the European league table only Spain has a worse record.
The price rises we have had so far will be as nothing compared with the price rises we shall get in 1973. There are three factors in this. There is the common agricultural policy, the 10 per cent. devaluation, at least, which has not yet shown up in our prices in the shops and the introduction of VAT on 1st April. What will be the total effect of these three factors on prices in 1973? The outlook is grim indeed.
On education, the Tories said:
We will maintain the existing rights of local authorities to decide what is best for their areas.
What has the Secretary of State for Education and Science done? In one scheme after another—including one in her own constituency—she has interfered and used—in some case abused—her powers under the 1944 Act to destroy secondary reorganisation schemes by


approving the whole scheme except for the ending of selection in certain schools, thus destroying the scheme. The result is that, after 21.- years of Tory rule, tens of thousands of children throughout the country are still to be subjected to the gross injustice of the 11-plus, which is one of the greatest remaining social injustices in this country. That injustice has been perpetuated by the Government.
The whole thing is summed up in this quotation from "A Better Tomorrow":
The aim of these policies is to create a new opportunity for a better tomorrow. A better tomorrow for all: … for the unemployed, for the children still in poverty …
We have recently been given a figure of 2 million children in poverty:
… for the old and the lonely.
They are the ones who now queue for bones:
A better tomorrow with greater freedom: freedom from Government interference…
What about the Prime Minister's letter? How does it fit into that slot?
… freedom of choice, freedom from fear of crime and violence.
One dare hardly go out at night for fear of being mugged—after 2½ years of this Government with all their talk about law and order.
If we compare the promises which I have quoted from "A Better Tomorrow" with the record, there can be one of two explanations. Either the Conservative Party was thoroughly dishonest in making these promises or the Government are thoroughly incompetent in not implementing them. Their record in these two-and-a-half years has been a miserable record of utter incompetence and failure. So should we agree to the motion? On second thoughts, perhaps it would be as well to agree to it, so that my hon. and right hon. Friends can go back to their constituencies and explain to young people why they cannot buy a house, explain to school leavers why they cannot get a job for six or nine months, explain to the one-third of a million who have been out of work for six months or more why they have been out of work, explain to the trade unions why the Industrial Relation Act has reduced industrial relations to chaos, explain to the people of this country just what kind of

Government we have got—thoroughly incompetent, and miserably ineffective.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. John Biffen: The speech of the right hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Edward Short) reflected some degree of partisanship. Nevertheless, I detected within it all the elements of a pillow fight because when it comes to dealing with the motion which is now before us we all know that it will pass unchallenged by the Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman will show himself as lacklustre in his conduct of opposition in this respect as was the Labour campaign in the recent Sutton and Cheam by-election.
A motion of this character always gives Parliament an opportunity to turn briefly to the serious considerations of time which inevitably touch our proceedings —and perhaps more topically on this occasion, because during the Christmas period we shall move into membership of the Community. The recess covers that period and we shall return to the House only a matter of days before the first tranche of the transitional period towards full implementation of the Common agricultural policy. That will be on its way from 1st February.
The House must spend a few moments considering whether in the disposition of our time we are giving ourselves a sufficient period to carry out the proper scrutiny of the emerging laws derived from Brussels in a way in which we can maintain both a self-respecting role for Parliament and some kind of trust with our constituents who have sent us here because they think that it is in this House that the essential democratic process is put into effect in whatever context, continental or national.
I shall confine my brief remarks to the issue of animal health regulations, which has been given a topicality by the recent outbreak of swine vesicular disease. Nobody is more enthusiastic than I in paying tribute to the work of the Ministry officials in controlling the disease Therefore, in nothing I say shall I attempt to suggest that there are more grave implications than have already been suggested. Happily, all the indications at the moment are that the disease will be nothing like as rampant as we might have thought last week.
When the disease first broke out it was diagnosed, understandably but in the event wrongly, as foot-and-mouth disease. It so happened that at the very time when we were thinking about a recreation of the foot-and-mouth epidemic here our Minister of Agriculture was in Brussels agreeing to new arrangements which would have resulted ultimately in a substantial relaxation of our animal health regulations and of the controls which we seek to put into effect against foot-and-mouth disease. This is a subject, because of its topicality and also because it is a good illustration of the sort of dilemma that we face, to which the House will wish to return to again and again. Nobody should have any doubt about the seriousness of the animal health regulations or about their political implications and consequences.
When it was thought that the swine vesicular outbreak was still foot-and-mouth disease, the National Farmers' Union on 15th December issued a statement, part of which I quote:
At the same time the Union reiterates in the strongest possible terms its total opposition to any form of vaccination, and reminds Her Majesty's Government of its assurances when accepting the recommendation of the Northumberland Committee of Inquiry that vaccination would only be considered as a last resort in the face of a major outbreak and then with due consultation with the Union.
My anxiety is that that position, which is the present policy, could be eroded in time as a result of agreements which have recently been concluded in Brussels—agreements which have never been reported to or debated in this House. The interesting statement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster this afternoon was comprehensive and I welcomed it, but it did not touch on this specific issue. I fully appreciate Ministers' difficulties. So vast is the law-making capability of Brussels that Front Bench spokesmen are faced with serious problems and limitations.
As a result of realising that new foot-and-mouth and animal health regulations were being elaborated in the Community —information of which I became aware merely through reading the Financial Times—I sought to inform myself as best as possible about what was happening. The Library was able to supply me with a copy of Agence Europe, the daily bulletin. It said that two new directives

had been concluded, one concerning intra-Community trade in fresh meat, and the other relating to health problems connected with the importation of pigs, cattle and fresh meat from third countries. The bulletin contained:
The main aim of this directive is to ensure that only such meat as is obtained from animals which have spent less than 21 days in the EEC before slaughter may circulate freely, and, even then, provided that no cases of foot-and-mouth or swine pest etc. have been recorded in the abattoirs concerned… Regarding the importation of livestock and meat from third countries, the procedure for the enforcement of the directive is more complicated… The directive will be applicable from 1st January 1976, except for cases in which the Member States are bound to third countries by certain bilateral agreements, when the time-limit can be extended for a year.
I come to the important sentence:
As for the new member countries, they will have to apply the directive as from 1st January 1978.
What that bulletin was saying in its commentary on the animal health regulations, which touch matters such as foot-and-mouth disease, was that one has to recognise that, in comparison with the very strong laws which are enforced in the United Kingdom, Community texts represent a retreat and are less demanding.
Confronted with that evidence I went to the Vote Office and on a green form completed a request for this directive so that I could inform myself on a matter which is of intimate and direct concern to constituents. I received a letter from the Library which is worth quoting. It said:
 We have not yet received our copy of the Journal Officiel carrying the texts of the two directives, one on health controls in the intracommunity trade in fresh meat and the other on health problems connected with the importing of livestock and meat from third countries… I assume the delay is due to the recent strike of Commission staff.
Following the evangelism of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in his statement today, perhaps I should read the rest of the letter:
Unfortunately the animal health section of the Ministry of Agriculture is unable to supply copies—their representative did not bring back texts from Brussels and they too await the Journal Officiel.
These things can happen in the best-run houses, but the fact remains that at a time when we have renewed interest in the animal health regulations which are


germane to the whole agricultural industry of this country—which has a matchless record in pedigree livestock exports—and when changes are in prospect, we as Members of Parliament cannot obtain the directives on which subsequent legislation may be presented to the House.
I am quite unashamed in taking this opportunity to say that before we politicians go to the four corners of the country telling industry and commerce that they had better shape themselves up and get themselves ready for the challenges which lie ahead in the Common Market, we should be looking at our own procedures and arrangements to inquire whether we as legislators and Members of Parliament have even begun to appreciate some of the implications and consequences of potential membership of the Community.
I feel that this has been an appropriate occasion on which to raise the matter, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will understand that I do so out of no sense of disagreement or dissatisfaction with what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has undertaken. However, I believe that the vigilance of this House is the very least that we can contribute in this situation.

5.11 p.m.

Mr. John Morris: I shall not detain the House for more than a few minutes in raising with the Leader of the House a matter to which I drew attention in the course of business questions last week. It relates to the tax anomaly which injures our soldiers who have fought gallantly in Northern Ireland.
On 6th December the Welsh Guards returned from Germany where at least 17 of their number had purchased motor cars. Last week I asked the Leader of the House to ensure that a statement was made early this week to remove what I regarded as a grave and scandalous anomaly.
The practice hitherto has been that when a soldier or, for that matter, anyone else has purchased a motor car or any other article subject to purchase tax more than 12 months before and has remained outside this country for that time, that article has not been liable to

tax when he has returned to this country.
Unhappily, in the last 12 months of the two-year period of the Welsh Guards in Germany their service was broken by a four-month period in Northern Ireland. These ordinary guardsmen had bought their motor cars in Germany and kept them there for more than 12 months. They were sent to Northern Ireland on an unaccompanied tour leaving their families and belongings behind in Germany. Because the 12 months was broken by a period of service in Northern Ireland, when they returned to this country with their motor cars they were obliged to pay in one case £103, in another £110 and sums of that kind. A shock of that kind must be a major tragedy for the finances of any serving soldier, and I want to know why there was this change of practice on 6th December.
In the meantime, I have tabled a number of Questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army. I am told that 23,000 soldiers from Germany have served in Northern Ireland in the past three and a quarter years. That means that any one of those who bought articles subject to purchase tax in the last 16 months of his service—well over the 12-month period—is at risk because obviously he will lose his tax concession if for any part of his last 12-months' total service he is obliged to serve in Northern Ireland. In the past three and a quarter years hundreds of soldiers who have come back from Germany have made purchases in the usual way.
We know how the families of our soldiers have to move from one end of the land to another at great expense, some of which is recouped, of course, but one of their "perks" is that if they are out of the country for more than 12 months they can stock up with articles free of purchase tax. If they are called upon to serve in Northern Ireland they are denied this privilege. As a constituent of mine has put it in a letter to me:
Because they have been called upon to serve and to fight for the State to maintain law and order in Northern Ireland and because they have done it in the course of a 12-month period in Germany they have been obliged to pay the State for the privilege of serving the State. This is what it amounts to.


I want to know from the Leader of the House why there have been no complaints before. Is it because no one has been charged before? Is it because there was a change of practice on 6th December? I have received the bland reply from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that these cars have to be owned and used abroad for a minimum period of 12 months. I have asked the right hon. Gentleman to intervene and to ensure that the four-month period of service in Northern Ireland should not be counted as an interruption in service abroad denying these soldiers their privileges.
In replies to the four questions that I have put down, I have been told what the position is. I want to know whether the door is closed. Are Service men to be denied this privilege, or will the Government make an early statement to the effect that they will look at the position again to ensure that our soldiers are not called upon to pay as they have been in the past few weeks?

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Neil Marten: I shall not detain the House very long, either. I intend in the main part of my speech to follow on much the same theme as that propounded by my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen).
Perhaps before that I might comment on the speech of the right hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Edward Short). It followed his letter in The Times on the same theme. I kept that letter, and last weekend I went through the Conservative election manifesto in order to see how much of what he said in the letter was right, how much was fair and how much was unfair. I must confess that on one or two matters he was probably right. However, that manifesto was for a whole Parliament. While one or two matters might look a bit "dicey" now, there is time for my right hon. and hon. Friends to pull up again so that when we go into the next General Election those rather dicey-looking undertakings will have been fulfilled.
Standing back from that, however, the speech of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was very much the sort of speech which, when my party was in opposition, I used to make, a good deal less efficiently but much more aggressively, about his party and about its

manifesto, which was a well-thumbed document in my library.
Comparing our two speeches, it is fair to conclude perhaps that parties are a little unwise to be over-specific in their election manifestos. They should cast them in rather more general, though not misleading, terms because, whichever party we are discussing, the fact is that if parties do not honour their pledges at election time, or if they positively dishonour them, the voters will say that the political parties are not to be trusted since they say one thing at election time and do the opposite when they are elected to office.
I am one of those who simplistically perhaps, attach great importance to the honouring of election pledges by the party which succeeds in an election. Therefore, I hope that one or two of the dicey undertakings will be implemented and that we shall go into the next election having honoured all the pledges that we made at the last one.
I return to the purpose of this debate, and I make the ritual noise that I think we should not adjourn before we are satisfied that machinery exists in the House of Commons so that this House can be serviced as from 1st January with all the Common Market papers. So far I am not satisfied that this machinery exists. I want an assurance that it will all be organised before we go away for the Christmas holidays.
Among all the papers that I receive from the Vote Office, when I find the pink form and remember to fill it in I get EEC regulations and directives. To-Today they are coming through dated September, June and August 1972. By no means are they up-to-date. Clearly, by the time that we get to 1st January all the regulations and directives must be available in the Vote Office, and we must be brought right up-to-date in the English language. It would be terrible if that were not to happen, because we would not know the laws which were applicable to this country under section 2 of the European Communities Bill.
From 1st January we shall want to see all the draft regulations made available in English in the Vote Office. I mean 1st January, not 22nd January when we come back. I shall be calling at the Vote Office, if not on 1st January, certainly on


2nd January, to collect all these documents, so that, by the time we get back on 22nd January, I shall be well briefed to raise many of these matters in Parliament and, I hope, occupy much parliamentary time over them.
Before the House rises I should like an assurance that Members of Parliament can be given or can obtain copies of the Official Journal from the Vote Office. I should also like an assurance that we shall he able to obtain copies of Agence Europe to which my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry referred. That is not the sort of Private Eye of the Community, but it is full of leaks. It knows what is going on and what is being talked about. It is a very useful document. There is copyright about it, but hon. Members ought to be able to indent in the Vote Office for a photo-copy of one issue for which the House of Commons has paid—it is quite expensive—so that we can keep up to date with thinking in the Community.
The next thing we must demand, if that is not too strong a word, is to be informed of proposals which the Community may have. I refer not to draft directives but to the proposals. My right hon. and learned Friend, now Secretary of State for the Environment, on Second Reading of the European Communities Bill said:
publicity is given to all proposals of any significance so that those interested may know of them when they are still only proposals."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th Feb. 1972; Vol. 831, c. 274.]
I have not heard of any system whereby the House of Commons is to be informed immediately when a proposal is made. We want to make our views known in accordance with that assurance given by my right hon. Friend.
Those are just a few of the matters which must be absolutely 100 per cent. tee-ed up and tied up by 1st January. If not, there will be a grave breach of the undertakings which were given on Second Reading. In addition to the draft instruments, about which we had an assurance, and the Official Journal, we shall want many debates on these matters. We were told on Second Reading that we would be able to debate them.
I should like to make a helpful suggestion to my right hon. Friend. If he

cannot guarantee that this assurance will be honoured, he can do one simple thing. He merely needs to send a courier to Rome to withdraw the ratification, which has been deposited, until such time as he is ready and then to go back and deposit the ratification again. That will then be our joining date. That is, if he is not ready. Parliament and the Government ought to have been ready. That solution has an advantage. The French are to told their elections in February or March. The French Prime Minister, M. Messmer, has clearly stated that if the Socialist-Communist Front gets back into power that will be the end of the Common Market. Therefore, I suggest we would be wise to withdraw our deposit of the ratification until after the French elections in case that should happen. It would be a pity to pop in for a couple of months and then have the thing break up. After all, the Communists and Socialists are leading the Gaullists in the opinion polls. If the Gaullists get back we can go ahead. But, if not, we would never have gone in and my right hon. Friend would have had the wonderful experience of preparing to produce all the papers for which I have been asking in the House of Commons.
Finally on this subject I should like to mention a matter of mechanics. On 7th December I asked my right hon. Friend
if he will make arrangements for adequate staff to be available in the Vote Office so that those hon. Members who wish to place a standing order for all European Economic Community papers can receive such a service.
It would be extremely useful to those who are determined to watch what is going on to be able to say, "we would like every paper emanating from the EEC to be sent to us."
My right hon. Friend replied:
The facility of placing a standing order has been requested in the past for papers other than EEC documents and has been refused for reasons of economy. In view of the substantial additional cost involved. I cannot agree to a departure from the existing practice."—- [OFFICIAL REPORT. 7th December 1972; Vol 847, c. 520]
Here is this great so-called adventure of going into Europe and the House of Commons cannot afford one clerk who could function as a producer of documents on a standing order to hon. Members. It is absurd when we bear in mind that £350,000 is being "blown" in about


two weeks on the "Fanfare for Europe", including some curious expenditure of £25,000 paid in compensation for cancellation of concert halls for the "Fanfare for Europe" concerts. If £25,000 can be paid out for that kind of ridiculous action, surely we can afford to hire a man at £2,500 a year for 10 years, which would amount approxicately to what the "Fanfare for Europe" under Lord Goodman has paid to acquire the use of halls. It is a near scandal that we are not allowed to indent on the Vote Office for a regular supply of documents on a standing order basis.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will think again on this matter and, if necessary, go to Lord Goodman and say "Dear Lord Goodman, may we please have back £10,000 from that 'Fanfare' money to that we can employ one person to help Members of Parliament to get to grips with the Common Market with which this 'Fanfare' is concerned?" I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend could answer the questions which I have posed.

5.28 p.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heifer: I shall not detain the House very long. I am unhappy about the motion because it means that the House will be going into recess for four weeks, and, of course, we shall be on full pay. I am deeply concerned about those people, particularly on Merseyside, who will be spending the next four weeks as part of our unemployed. For that reason, I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Edward Short) was right to spotlight unemployment and the effect that it is having on our people.
On Merseyside there are between 56,000 and 60,000 unemployed. At June 1970 we had 29,000 unemployed. That was much too high a level. But within two and a half years the position has deteriorated so much that we have twice the number of unemployed on Merseyside than when the Labour Government went out of office.
I want the House to think about the effect that unemployment will have not only on the workers involved but on their families, their children, their wives and relatives during this period of so-called festivities when they are on the dole. Of course, many of them have been unemployed for well over six months and

others for over a year. A high percentage of workers are now long-term unemployed.
Those affected are skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled workers. Many young people who left school 18 months ago have not yet had jobs. Middle-aged people in the full vigour of life have no work. Elderly people who left work at 50 or 55 years of age now know that if this situation continues they have no prospect of ever working again. It is wrong for the House to rise for four weeks when that kind of situation exists not only in my part of the world but also in areas such as that represented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central. The situation is disgraceful.
There has been—no one has denied it—a slight upturn in the economy, but in a discussion that I had recently with the Minister for Industry he admitted that the upturn had not affected Merseyside, that it was still the worst area in the whole of the North-West and that unemployment had continued to increase although there had been a slight improvement in other areas. It is, therefore, clear that the outlook for Chrismas and the new year is bleak indeed for the workers there.
During the last two years the ship-repairing and shipping industries have been bady affected, and we are concerned about what will happen when we enter the Community. Liverpool has one of the biggest sugar refineries in the country, and I have had correspondence with the Minister about the future of Tate and Lyle, because the workers there are worried about what will happen to them. We are told that the whole situation is being investigated and that there will be some sort of final report, but the workers are deeply perturbed because they realise that this old-established industry on Merseyside could be adversely affected by our entry into the EEC.
There is also the question of the designation of the central areas. I have probed the issue with Minister after Minister. Will Mersey be designated as part of the central area, and if it is, what aid are we likely to get?
The Lucas CAV workers have been sitting in at their factory for eight weeks. The reason is that 1,200 workers are to be thrown out of employment because the


Lucas management has decided to close that factory. Some of the products now being made there are to be made in the South-East, while others are to be made in Spain—both areas which are geared to the Common Market.
Is Merseyside to become a backwater once we enter the Community? We are already suffering from a decline in our traditional industries through no fault of our own. It is not our fault that there has been a decline in the passenger shipping trade. Many people now travel to America and elsewhere by plane, and travel by sea is on a very much reduced scale.
A number of purpose-built factories in our area are lying empty. The Minister for Industry told us that he would use the Industry Act to the full. That being so, will the Government give a guarantee that if they cannot get employers to move into these purpose-built factories they will themselves introduce industry to them, not only to provide employment for the CAV workers but to help solve the general unemployment problem there? If the Government do not wish to do that, will they again approach Lucas with a view to getting the company to expand LIE a second factory which is part of the group in my constituency, by giving it financial aid?
We are told that Merseyside must improve its image. We are told that industrialists do not like to go there because the workers are always going on strike and demanding better conditions of work, and so on. The House may like to know that the management of one factory in my constituency—Read—which proposes to sack 100 workers after Christmas wrote to me saying that this had nothing to do with industrial relations, which are the best possible at the factory. This factory does not have a bad image; yet these workers are being thrown out of work.
The Government must face the problem. It is not just a question of the image of Merseyside. The fact is that over the last two years unemployment has increased because of the failure of the Government to provide the necessary resistance. We are now beginning to get assistance, but we need a lot more. There is still a terrible housing problem, yet on Merseyside there are thousands of unemployed building operatives—many

of them highly skilled—roaming the streets looking for employment. People are crying out for houses, and the Government must provide financial aid to local councils on Merseyside to ensure that houses are built and the workers are put to work. The same is true of schools. We have old wooden schools which ought to be swept away and replaced by new schools, the building of which would provide employment.
We ought not to go away from this House for four weeks. There are vital issues to be dealt with, one of the most important being that of providing employment for our people. They do not face a nice, happy Christmas. They are worried about the future and about their prospects for employment. They want to know when they will be employed, and I want to know when the Government intend to do something positive for areas such as Merseyside in order to bring work there and to give my people the work which they so urgently need.

5.38 p.m.

Mr. David Waddington: I am in favour of this motion as an act of mercy and charity towards the Opposition, who, I am sure, will be grateful for the opportunity of going away for a month and trying to sort themselves out before returning to this place.
I am moved to speak this afternoon because of the fairly tale told by the right hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Edward Short). At the beginning of his speech the right hon. Gentleman announced that the Government had reduced thousands—or was it millions?—of his fellow citizens to poverty. One would have thought that anybody with integrity would have had the grace and decency to acknowledge the many respects in which the system of social security has been extended since 1970. There is, of course, always more to be done—there will always be more to be done—but surely it is right to acknowledge that it is only under this Government that cash aid has been given to the family supported by the low-wage earner as a result of the introduction of family income supplement.
It is surely right and just and fair to acknowledge that this Government have given widows' benefits to widows who were not entitled to benefits before. It is


surely right and fair to acknowledge that many pensioners over the age of 80 who were not entitled to pensions under the Labour Government are entitled to pensions as a result of measures taken by this Government.
It is surely right and fair to acknowledge not only the marvellous work done by the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris), who is present today, in the field of help for the disabled, but the fact that this Government implemented the constant attendance allowance. It is surely right to acknowledge that it was this Government which introduced the invalidity benefit. Last, it is surely right to acknowledge that the old-age pension today, although most of us would like it to be of much greater value, has much more value than it had under the Labour Government.
So let us at least acknowledge the facts and acknowledge that, although much remains to be done, this has been a humane, just Government, which set out to expand the social services and have had a fair measure of success.
The right hon. Gentleman then referred to the number of days lost through strikes since 1970. It may be very unjust to the Opposition, but the public have gained the impression that almost every strike since 1970 has had the enthusiastic support of many hon. Members opposite. The right hon. Gentleman, referring to the Industrial Relations Act, said that the AUEW was being hounded by the National Industrial Relations Court. How ridiculous can one get? The AUEW has only to observe the law and go before the court and there will be no hounding. It only has to act in a law-abiding, lawful fashion, like the rest of us, to have no more troubles in that direction.
One of the great scandals perpetrated by the Labour Party and the trade union movement over the last few months has been that, as a result of the attitudes adopted by hon. Members opposite and the trade union movement, many working people who are entitled to compensation for unjust dismissal under the Industrial Relations Act are being denied representation before the court by the unions whose duty it is to look after their interests in that and other directions.
I am proud of this Government's work in introducing the Act, the full worth of which is not yet evident—

Mr. J. D. Concannon: Thank God.

Mr. Waddington: —but which at least—I hope that hon. Members opposite will remember this—has extended the rights of the individual in many most important respects.
Many people may think that Mr. Goad is a crank. Many people may find cranks difficult to live with, but at least this Government have passed a measure which allows cranks—and people who are not cranks, people who feel that their proper interests are not being looked after or are being abused by their trade unions—to go before a court and obtain redress which they never had before. That is something of which I am proud.
When he talked of the decision to enter the EEC, the right hon. Gentleman did not of course mention that the application which has now been successful was put in by the Labour Government, another of the real scandals of the last two-and-a-half years is that hon. Members opposite, who supported entry throughout the time of the Labour Government, ratted on their commitment as soon as they went into opposition, because they thought that they could get some cheap political advantage by so doing.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer), who unfortunately has left, talked about unemployment. Of course there are problems of severe unemployment, but I should have liked him to hear me say that the record that Merseyside has for bad industrial relations does not help it. There has been a great deal of discussion in North-East Lancashire recently about the decision by Courtaulds some years ago to open a new factory in Skelmersdale and about the announcement by Courtaulds not many months ago that, because of the appalling industrial relations in that factory, it had decided to cease operations there. It has now had second thoughts, but the point is no less good.
The point is that time and time again I and many other people in this House and outside have been told that no sooner


did Courtaulds commence operations in Skelmersdale than the trouble makers in Merseyside moved out of Merseyside and into Skelmersdale—and things never went right from that day.
One has to acknowledge that, although we are still faced with a terrible unemployment problem, there is a lot that hon. Members opposite and many people on the ground in places like Merseyside could do to ease the problem if they had the wish to do so.
Furthermore, it is significant that in Nelson, for instance, although there are many people on the books of the employment exchange, when the post office was looking for temporary help during the Christmas rush it could not get a single person from the labour exchange to do that work. I should like to see a much more far-reaching inquiry into the way in which we compile our unemployment statistics, for instance. I have been told how an employer asked for a certain number of workmen to be available for work the following Monday and how, in spite of the number of people on the books of the employment exchange, he could not get one to do the job. Other employers have had five men start on the Monday, three have turned up on the Tuesday, and none has been left by the Friday.
It makes me wonder whether we are doing justice to ourselves in the way in which we compile these statistics. My guess it that, although many more people are unemployed than there should be, the genuine unemployed are very many fewer than would appear from a glance at the figures published each month.
Referring to education, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be very cross about the way in which the Secretary of State for Education and Science has conducted her duties. Looking at the figures, what is really a matter for surprise is how few schemes for reorganisation have been rejected by her. The vast majority of schemes put forward by local authorities have been approved. I should have thought that there was very little to complain of in that.
The right hon. Gentleman also fulminated about the price of houses. I should like my right hon. Friend to deal with

this subject, if he has time. My understanding is that, in spite of the escalation in house prices, more young people are buying houses today than have ever bought houses in the past. In other words, although the price of houses has risen, the increase in earnings and prosperity among young people has more than compensated for that. More people are buying houses; more are getting loans from the building societies.
In short although not all the pledges made in our election manifesto have as yet been honoured, I am very proud of the progress that has been made on the many subjects which I have just mentioned; in particular, on industrial relations. Therefore, I support the motion, believing that good work has been done here and that we shall return refreshed in January to carry on with the task.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Jay: I shall not try to follow the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) in his rather routine, party-political speech, though I agree with him that the full value of the Industrial Relations Act is not yet apparent to many of us.
I want to suggest that it would not be right for the House to adjourn for four weeks when, as several hon. Members have already said this afternoon, the legislative effect of many of the decisions now being taken in Brussels affecting our interests is far from clear.
I take as an example the extraordinary situation created by the statement this afternoon by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on the subject of the allocation of lorry licences. I hope that the Leader of the House will be able to answer the questions which the Chancellor of the Duchy was unable to answer earlier today.
The fact appears to be this. At the meeting of the Council of Ministers in the last two days, the French brought forward a scheme for the distribution of lorry licences between the members of the enlarged Community which, according to the Minister for Transport Industries, was grossly unfair to this country. I state the Minister's view rather than my view, but I do not dissent from it. However,


apparently this proposal, regarded as unacceptable by us, was adopted by the Council of Ministers and took the form, we were told, of a directive.
What, surely, the House and the country should know when we are proposing to adjourn in this fashion is whether or not this directive becomes legally effective as from 1st January 1973. It is really no answer to this to say that someone is setting up a working party which is to consider whether that directive might or might not be amended at some later date. What we surely want to know, and what indeed the courts must know, is whether, without any further decision by the House, this directive becomes British law as from 1st January next.
It is a somewhat extraordinary situation that we have now reached. We have legislation in secret by the Council of Ministers without any report of what has happened or what was said. As has already been said today, we have no documents, so far as I know, regarding the exact terms of this directive, so it is also legislation which is unknown to us, except in a paraphrased summary by the Minister, and at present we do not even know whether this legislation becomes binding as from 1st January.
We were told that this was a directive, not a regulation. According to the European Communities Act, regulations are directly applicable. They become the law of this country without any further intervention by this House or by the British Parliament. Directives, on the other hand, so we have always understood, according to the Treaty of Rome, require a further legislation act, normally an order approved by the House, before they come into force. If this is, as the Chancellor of the Duchy says, not a regulation but a directive, presumably it cannot acquire the force of law in this country until the appropriate order has been laid before the House and approved. Will the Minister tell us whether that is correct? The House should know this before we adjourn. Will the Minister say whether, therefore, this decision on the allocation of licences would at any rate not have the force of law until the necessary order has been laid before the House, presumably after Christmas and approved? We should at least know that.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: I hope to follow the example of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) in his brevity if not in his arguments. I wish to touch on something which has not been properly discussed in the House, and we ought not to adjourn until this matter has been at least raised.
A threat hangs over this Parliament. I refer not to the threat about which the right hon. Gentleman has just waxed eloquent but to a different sort of threat. We shall all be glad to get through the quagmire outside for the last time for a month when we leave this building in two days' time. But if we spend a few moments during the next two days in the Committee Corridor, we shall see a model of a far bigger mess—the new parliamentary building. If that is built, not only will our Parliament Square be destroyed and the centre of the Commonwealth be changed beyond recognition in an ugly, undesirable and unharmonious way, but we shall also be wasting a great deal of time and taxpayers' money in the process.
I believe that many hon. Members are already having second thoughts about the car park extravaganza. But it is too late to do anything about that. It is being built at enormous cost and with enormous mess, although with great ingenuity on the part of those who are building it. But if we look at the new building which is threatened, we must see that this would be the most monstrous intrusion into this fair city. London has been almost destroyed in many parts over the last few years, but still Parliament Square is its crowning glory. It would be destroyed by building that enormous, ugly, gaunt, bronze façade, which is totally incongruous. It would, perhaps, be appropriate in Milton Keynes or some other new town or city, but not here. I am certain that no one could justify it on aesthetic grounds.
The cost is estimated to be £8 million at present, but by the time it is built I would bet that the cost will be double that figure. Can we, as Members of Parliament, pretend that our conditions are so had that we ought to spend the best part of £20 million on making them better? It is not necessary.
We recently had a very enlightened announcement from a very enlightened


Government when they told us about New Scotland Yard. There can be very few hon. Members who did not cheer the announcement of the reprieve of that building. There is accommodation which could be adapted and adopted for the use of Members of Parliament. The facilities we have are totally inadequate, and we need individual rooms so that we can do our jobs properly and attend to our constituents' needs. But we do not need this new building. New Scotland Yard, adapted and adopted, would more than fill most of our needs.
And surely it is not absolutely necessary that the Treasury has to stay in the centre of London. Many of our other Departments are being spread out. The Department of the Environment is a little way away, in Marsham Street. The Department of Education and Science has recently moved from Curzon Street. No law says that the Treasury must remain in Whitehall, so if changes have to be effected let the Treasury be moved somewhere else—perhaps to Centre Point—and we could occupy the Treasury building if New Scotland Yard does not provide all the facilities we need.
In the four weeks that we have been graciously given, we ought to think about these alternatives and about how we can meet the needs of Members of Parliament and, at the same time, save the taxpayer a lot of money and save London and our fair Parliament Square from desecration.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Alfred Morris: There was talk earlier in the debate of pillow-fighting and of ritual noises. Such charges are, of course, standard practice in debates of this kind. Synthetic anger and posturing were the stock-in-trade of many right hon. and hon. Members on the Government side when they occupied the benches on this side of the House. I hope it will be agreed by the hon. Members for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) and for Banbury (Mr. Marten), among others on both sides of the House, that the point I am now about to raise is a deeply serious one.
I feel very strongly that the House should not, indeed must not, rise for the Christmas Recess before we have had a statement either from the Secretary of

State for Social Services, or from the Prime Minister, clarifying the Government's fund of £3 million for severely congenitally handicapped children. There is still a disturbingly high number of unresolved questions about the fund. I hope that the Leader of the House will now be able to tell us that the Secretary of State for Social Services, or the Prime Minister, will be answering these questions before the recess.
We need to know how many children will benefit from the fund and who the children are. There is a duty upon the Government clearly to define the phrase "very severely congenitally handicapped children" for the purposes of the fund. We want to know whether the Government are still satisfied, in the light of all the representations which they have received since the debate on 29th November, that £3 million is adequate for the needs of the thalidomide and other very severely disabled children and their families.
The Secretary of State, or the Prime Minister, must also tell us what is the Government's response to the latest offer by Distillers (Biochemicals) Ltd. Right hon. and hon. Members on the Government side are very much involved in the future of this offer. There is, quite properly, widespread public interest in this matter. The public want to know how the Government will respond to the revised offer that has now been made by Distillers Ltd. The company is assuming tax concessions. I have argued in earlier debates that the Government are deeply involved in this matter on other counts. Thalidomide was prescribed under the National Health Service. The drug was also exempted from purchase tax because of its exceptional efficacy. Distillers Ltd. has said that the Government ought to help the company with a major financial contribution to increase the amount they are offering. We must be told how the Government respond.
There are thus many questions which urgently require answers before the House rises for the Christmas Recess. It is not enough to try to dispose of this matter in a written reply to an inspired Parliamentary Question. The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Astor) put to the Secretary of State for Social Services a Question, which seemed to me to be inspired. The Question was answered on


15th December. The reply from the Secretary of State left undetermined many of the questions raised by the parents of very severely congenitally handicapped children. The hon. Member for Newbury is, of course, a very close friend of disabled people throughout the country. He is the secretary of the all-party disablement group, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) is the chairman.
I am sure the hon. Member for Newbury agrees that we must have answers to the questions I have raised before the Houses rises for the recess. I ask the Leader of the House to note very carefully that this is not a party point. I ask him also to recognise that there is no question of pillow-fighting or shadow boxing on this issue. We do not even know yet why the figure of £3 million was decided upon. Is it all that the Government thought was necessary? Is it all that the Government thought they could afford? Before we are asked to go away for four weeks, will the Government now reply to the questions which are being asked by the parents of heavily disabled children, as well as by many hon. Members on both sides of the House?
I appeal to the Leader of the House to address himself to these points. I ask him to give a definite assurance that there will be a verbal statement from the Secretary of State for Social Services, or from the Prime Minister, before the House rises for the Christmas Recess.

6.8 p.m.

Mr. Jeffrey Archer: I wish to make two points to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House explaining why I am unhappy about our adjourning for the recess. One reason is that my right hon. Friend has not visited Louth despite two invitations. If he manages to do this before Friday, I shall be only too happy to support him in the motion.
I am sure the whole House will join me—particularly as it has already been said that many of these points are not party political—in congratulating my right hon. Friend on his first Session as Leader of the House. It is not an easy job; no one is ever satisfied, but I am sure the whole House will agree that my

right hon. Friend deserves praise for his efforts.
Will my right hon. Friend try to influence my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in seeing a deputation from the Humberside area? We have accepted Humberside, albeit reluctantly, but we are now disappointed to find that we have one regional council which is so large that it will be almost ungovernable in a truly local sense. I am sure the House will forgive my mentioning places. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House knows Lincolnshire well. Other hon. Members may not understand what I am saying but my right hon. Friend, knowing the area, will know the parts to which I am referring.
The new district to which I am referring, called district 2, will stretch all the way from the outskirts of Grimsby down to Boston, which is two parliamentary constituencies. I am asking my right hon. Friend to pass on to the Secretary of State for the Environment that that area is too big to be governed at a truly local level and that it would be better served by two councils with a firm division just above Alford and Horncastle. If this could be done it would make us feel that we in the Lincolnshire area are not always the ones who are treated as if we were out on a limb and that people do not care about us.
I ask my right hon. Friend to think of the second subject of which he has personal knowledge, the immense controversy in the Lincolnshire area concerning Anglia Television. We know that we are to lose Anglia Television to Yorkshire Television in 1975. The people in Lincolnshire look to the south, not to the north. They would like to receive Anglia Television rather than Yorkshire Television. All 25 hon. Members representing the area are at one on this issue and seek his support. My right hon. Friend will rightly say that this is not a matter for the Government and that this is not a decision he can take. I wish he would bring his considerable influence to bear on the Independent Television Authority, perhaps at a personal level although that may be impossible, or say that 25 hon. Members feel very strongly and would like a future choice between Yorkshire Television and Anglia Television or, if


there has to be one choice, that it should be for Anglia.
I appreciate that my right hon. Friend has no authority, but it would be foolish to pretend that he does not have influence. As he does not live 150, 300 or 1,000 miles away from the area I am discussing, he will know the arguments on this subject. I wish to rally his support as well as that of all hon. Members representing the area.
If my right hon. Friend finds it possible to visit my constituency and the two areas concerned before Friday night, and also finds it possible by Friday night to establish Anglia Television permanently in our area, I shall not think that our time has been wasted. We shall then find even more pleasure in welcoming my right hon. Friend to our district.

6.3 p.m.

Mr. Phillip Whitehead: I associate myself with what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Edward Short) that we should not adjourn for the Christmas Recess until something has been done about the question of land and house prices. The House will want to know from the Lord President when he replies why the Government have refused to include in the statutory price freeze powers to control land and house prices.
A house is the biggest purchase that most people make. It is of particular significance in that it occurs when young people start out in life, when their funds are not extensive and when they are shattered by the news of gazumping or excessive price increases. The price squeeze is not being observed in any voluntary sense by agents or builders. Speculators have been cashing in in this area, which is exempt from the squeeze.
The Minister told us earlier how the average house mortgage had increased in size. The recent building societies' statistics show that for the first quarter of 1971 the average house mortgage was £3,823. For the third quarter of 1972 it was £5,698. Who is pushing up the prices?
I take one example from my area to illustrate why there is a need for urgent action. I hope that the Minister when

replying will give assurances that action can be taken to set at rest the minds of hundreds of my constituents who have been made miserable by the activities of house builders. A number of constituents have written to me, to the hon. Member for Belper (Mr. Stewart-Smith) and the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings), who wished to be associated, although we do not belong to the same parties, with the matter I raise.
I refer to Messrs. J. S. Bloor Limited of Measham. This firm has recently raised house prices to young couples who paid deposits many months ago. The house prices were raised suddenly by almost as much as 40 per cent. in some cases. Reservation deposits were paid to secure these plots at Midway. The ambiguity of the name is reflected in the ambiguity of the behaviour of the builders concerned.
Since house and land prices are not included within the scope of the statutory price freeze there is no way in which my constituents and the thousands of people throughout the country in this predicament can seek redress. None of these people has received a contract although many pressed for one, until November 1972 when the talks between the Government, the TUC and the CBI were reaching their final stages. It was then, when the imminence of the price freeze was clear, that builders such as J. S. Bloor increased their house prices in some cases by over £1,500, an enormous sum for a young couple to raise. There were other tragic cases.
The people concerned inform me that they were abruptly told by the agents that the prices of their houses were being increased by between £1,380 and £1,830, by over 35 per cent. in some cases. The same is true of many other cases throughout the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. David Stoddart) knows of one case in which 100 per cent. gazumping occurred.
Many people have written to me to the effect that they were informed by the land agents that they would secure their houses at the advertised prices. In the case of my constituent Mr. Budgen the advertised price was £3,950. He wrote:
At the beginning I was told … I would get the house at its advertised price of £3,950.


Then when I placed my deposit with them the agents hinted it could go up by £100 or £150. As late as 9th November 1972 my solicitor's paper work from J S. Bloor Limited still had the £3,950 first advertised price.
Because of the imminence of the price squeeze the prices were drastically raised. These people were given six weeks to obey, to sign their contracts or otherwise to get out. That is a scandalous state of affairs. It is scandalous that builders behave in this way during the Government's price freeze, which I support. It is scandalous that this firm and many others throughout the country can behave in this way.
What happens when people write to the Government requesting action? One of my constituents wrote to the Department of the Environment. The reply, in part, reads:
The value of a house at any point in time is what somebody is prepared to pay for it at that point. … This does not necessarily mean that in a seller's market the builder is making an excessive profit, as might appear at first sight. Since construction costs are not directly affected by demand an increase in the value of a house implies that the market is attributing a higher value to the land on which the house stands—and hence to the land to be used for future houses. If the builder does not charge the price that the market puts on its houses at the time he makes the sale, he is in danger of not being able to buy fresh land for his future house building.
If builders are speculating in land, inflation will continue unchecked. If builders now believe that because there is no control over the constant escalation in house prices they have to allow for this factor and the constant expectation of rising prices, the spiral of inflation will continue unchecked. But it is just the same with the sale of a pound of tomatoes in a supermarket if there is no control, as with a house sold on the open market, where the commodity will fetch what the market will bear.
Unless the Government are prepared to take powers to deal with this matter it is unlikely that the present statutory prices and incomes freeze will work as long as there are these extraordinary exceptions which mean so much to many people in the course of their lives and affect the largest purchase they will ever make. Sellers and purchasers are caught in the grip of an inflationary expectation, so that the freeze will not work.
Another of my constituents, Mr. Franklin, has said that he has not yet been gazumped. He is waiting, while the price of a house on a plot nearby has been increased by £1,500. He can obtain no answer from the building firm about whether his plot will be gazumped. This is part of the spiral of expectations of future inflation and future price increases.
It should not be left to local authorities to apply retrospective sanctions on firms like this by refusing to sell further land to them or to give further contracts to them, as may be done in the case of J. S. Bloor. It is up to the Government to act by including land and individual house prices within the freeze if we are to have adequate action to protect working men and women.

6.21 p.m.

Mr. Jack Ashley: I wish to refer to two matters which ought to be discussed before the House rises for the Christmas Recess. The first concerns the Shelton steelworks which may be closed by the expected Government announcement. If it is closed it will be a disaster for North Staffordshire and Newcastle-under-Lyme. If the steelworks is only partially closed there will be serious repercussions and the good will of many years will be dissipated. In addition it will be an economic disaster for the area.
North Staffordshire has the finest labour force in the country. There has been no substantial industrial trouble there for many years. It is a strike-free area and the men are highly skilled. If this steelworks is closed it will be economic madness and a social outrage. It is a profitable works and with the electric are furnaces which it is hoped to install it will be one of the best in the world. It has great natural assets which I hope will not be wasted by the Government.
There have been rumours that there may be natural wastage of the labour force in the steelworks and I hope that if this proves to be the case the jobs that are lost will be replaced as soon as possible in other industries. I hope that there will be massive retraining in Stoke as soon as possible to replace jobs which are lost.
I want to punch home this last-minute demand for the Government to face this serious situation in North Staffordshire because the men there, including the hon. Members representing Stoke-on-Trent and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) are very angry indeed. We are prepared to fight for full employment in the area. At this late hour I urge the Government to think again. I hope we will find time to debate this vital local issue before we rise for the recess.
The second matter I wish to raise concerns the new offer by the Distillers Company to the Government over the thalidomide children. The country is absolutely sick of the haggling in which this company has indulged. I hope we can debate this matter before the House rises. The company has asked the Government to agree to a new scheme which in reality is designed to enable the Government to get the company off the hook. What the company would be doing with the new offer is paying exactly the same amount of money—£5 million—as it was offering to pay before. That offer is related to the 1968 settlement which provided for only one-fifth of the children's actuarially estimated needs.
What these children need is £20 million in terms of today's cost of living to cover their lifelong requirements. I hope that the Government will emphatically reject the company's offer and demand that it should double its input, from £5 million to £10 million. Then and only then the Government should accept the scheme put forward by the company which will mean that the children will get £20 million. I ask the House to remember that for the company to double its offer will simply mean the loss of four weeks' profit, which is absolutely nothing in terms of great commercial profits.
I hope that if that is done the company will agree to reassess the settlements made by the families in 1968, because it is important that that matter should not be regarded as closed. I trust that we can find time to debate this because Alex McDonald, the chairman of the company, is being badly advised by little men with a Maginot Line mentality who are being outmanoeuvred by the parents and, oddly enough, the shareholders. Now, thanks

to the House of Commons, they are being outgunned too.
These advisers are suggesting to the chairman that he can save a few thousand pounds here or the odd £1 millon there and that by this or that legal device the company can be saved a little money. These are the wrong tactics.
What we need above all is a magnanimous and imaginative gesture from the company—an offer of £10 million to stop this haggling. The company should not offer £6 million, £7 million, £8 million or £9 million, but should offer £10 million. This figure is not negotiable because we do not negotiate about gravely deformed children.
I ask the Government to call a meeting of hon. Members of both sides of the House, parents of the children and the Editor of the Sunday Times, Mr. Harold Evans, who had has done so much to help these children. Next I ask that the Government's financial advisers should help these children in arranging their financial affairs. If this is done I believe that we shall see the end of this terrible saga. The House will hear no more about it and neither will the country. The company will have acquitted itself of any charges of failing to face up to its moral responsibilities. This is the solution. The sum of £10 million from the company will end all the haggling and heartache and I am sure that the Government will respond as readily as possible. If this is done, I believe that the House will appreciate it warmly.

6.27 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: I am sure the whole House will support my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) whom we all admire so much for the campaigns he has run and the way in which he has conducted them. I very much hope that he will have complete success in this case, as he has in the past. We have plenty of experience from our own constituencies of the anxieties being expressed over the real meaning of the offers made both as regards the thalidomide children and the somewhat wider Government scheme. This is a matter of deep concern to many constituents who are naturally anxious about their children.
I entirely support the anxieties expressed by my hon. Friend about the


industrial prospects in his own constituency. We must all seize this opportunity of making our problems clear and of insisting that before we rise for the recess these issues of deep concern to our constituents should be fully borne in mind.
I make no apology for raising an immediate problem affecting my area. On Tyneside, and particularly in my constituency of South Shields, we suffer from some of the heaviest unemployment in the country. Instead of prospects looking brighter I am afraid that the immediate prospects at any rate are grim. I have tried to extract some undertaking from Ministers about a whole series of events that are about to occur, so far without success. There is the case of one firm employing about 800 people which we are told is to be closed in March. Yet we have still had no assurance from the Government about the independent inquiry that should by now have been under way into the circumstances affecting the closure of the biscuit works which was taken over.
There is deep anxiety among thousands of men working in the Tyneside shipyards where no new orders have been placed in the last year. There is this deep and natural anxiety among my constituents and among many others on Tyneside about the future. Although the Minister gave an account of the prospects in the industry a few days ago he could not or would not say anything precise about the position of the yards on Tyneside. At the moment they employ large numbers of people. They are efficient yards which have vastly improved their productivity in the last couple of years and yet the result of that improved productivity appears at the moment to be that the men are working themselves out of jobs. We must have a clear understanding of the Government's position on the issue of employment.
There is deep concern about prospects of the heavy engineering industry which is the other main employer in the area, providing work for thousands of people. Again it is an efficient, vigorous industry which has been relied upon in the past. It is forward looking. It includes firms like Reyrolle Parsons which are household names not only in the North of England but throughout the world, yet they are imperilled at the moment because

of Government policy on the ordering of major plant. There are threats of further redundancies in the works about which an assurance is desperately needed.
These are all matters of prime importance which should be dealt with before the House goes into recess. My constituents would not understand if we were to recess without these matters being discussed as urgently as possible. They want to see something of the better prospects that the Government have spoken about but of which we have seen no sign.
I also wish to refer to a matter for which the Leader of the House used to be responsible concerning the export of livestock and the Community regulations applying to livestock and beef products. I am concerned at the application of Common Market regulations to the export of meat and the way in which inspection is likely to be carried out in future under the Community regulations. I speak as one who is, on balance, a supporter of entry. But I have been deeply concerned about the way in which there has been no opportunity to discuss the details of the Common Market regulations.
In this area, about which the right hon. Gentleman will know a great deal, representations have been made to the effect that if we accept the Common Market regulations the system of inspection of meat by health inspectors, and in future possibly the inspection of poultry and other food, may be swept aside or, at least, seriously threatened. So far it has been impossible to secure effective discussion about the implications of these developments and there have been warnings that under the Common Market system veterinary officers might be required to carry out work which is now normally carried out by the health inspectors.
Although there are relatively few veterinary officers in this country who would be available for such work, it is said that that problem could be solved by encouraging large numbers of Common Market veterinary officers to come and work here. One can imagine only too well the reaction from those employed in this work in this country if such a proposal were implemented. I stress that the proposal might refer not only to meat and meat products


but also to general food inspection as well. Some time ago the Minister and his Department emphasised, in answer to questions, how well satisfied they were with the work, the training and the qualifications of the public health inspectors in these matters. I ask the Minister therefore to take the opportunity to put people's minds at rest and assure us that there will be a full opportunity for discussion of the matter in the House before regulations of this kind, which might affect the work of so many people, are introduced.

6.37 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I quietly, gently, without vituperation and perhaps briskly raise four subjects which I would ask the Leader of the House to discuss with the Prime Minister. They have two things in common in that they will not wait, and they are all complex. Three of them are on foreign affairs but the first is a matter of home affairs. It concerns aliment, which was the subject of my Ten Minutes Rule Bill.
I shall not abuse the time of the House by setting out the arguments for the Mechanics of Payment of Aliment Bill which was objected to on Friday by Government Whips, because this is neither the time nor the place to do so. But there is one particular issue which I should like the Leader of the House to raise with the Prime Minister preferably before the Prime Minister comes to answer Question No. 02 to him standing in my name on the Order Paper tomorrow which deals with this subject. Should not the Prime Minister give some reflection over the recess to the time-scale of the functioning of Royal Commissions in this country, and specifically should not the Government turn their attention to what has happened to the committee looking into the problem of the one-parent family under the chairmanship of Mr. Morris Finer, QC?
I do not cast aspersions on Mr. Finer. He is a very distinguished and able lawyer. But the fact remains that on 6th November 1969 he was asked to be the chairman of a committee set up to examine the urgent problem of the one-parent family. On that occasion it was specifically put to him by the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr.

Crossman) whether or not he would have the time to carry out this task. I understand that assurances were given that he would have the time so to do. It is now three years and one month since that time and every hon. Member, in the meantime, has been presented with pathetic cases of aliment awarded by court order which does not find its way to the deserted woman for whom it is intended.
After constant nagging questions to the Department, the like of which I do not like putting down, the answer has been "Wait for Finer". The former Secretary of State for Social Services, my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East, writing in The Times today, draws attention to the subject and candidly admits that he perhaps made a mistake in handing the problem over to the Finer Committee rather than legislating himself.
I do not want to plug my Bill. However, many of its sponsors have taken a most serious long-term interest in social security affairs. Indeed it has the support of other hon. Members who for various reasons I did not see in time to enable them to act as sponsors—for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris). Among the sponsors are my right hon. Friend the Member for Sower-by (Mr. Houghton) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle).
Why do I draw the matter to the attention of the Leader of the House? I do so because the Government—and I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for Social Services, who has taken a deep interest in the matter and has discussed it with helpful Treasury Ministers and helpful Home Office Ministers—in their helpful approach to the matter decided in their wisdom to send me to see Mr. Morris Finer. I make no personal complaint about that, but the fact is that it was not possible to arrange a meeting because he is busy with the Trident inquiry.
This is a matter which concerns the higher echelons of the Government. There is an acknowledged urgent problem. Should it be passed over for three years to a man who is involved in one inquiry after another as a busy lawyer? No man can deal both with the Trident inquiry and one-parent families. It is unreasonable to expect him to do so.
It now appears—I am not breaking any confidence—that the report is nothing like in draft form. Had it been so, it would have been a cynical action to send me, palming me off, to see Mr. Finer. However, I am sure that the Secretary of State for Social Services was not cynical when he made that suggestion. It reveals, corroborated by other evidence, that the report is possibly 18 months to two years away. There must be added to that time the two years which we all know it takes to draft legislation and to go through the whole process. My hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe knows about the sheer difficulty of putting the matter into legislative form.
I ask the Leader of the House to discuss with the Prime Minister whether this urgent problem, which concerns us all, could not be dealt with after Christmas, through the vehicle of the Ten Minutes Rule Bill. It is a problem which in a sense stands partly on its own. I leave it at that.
The second issue about which I shall talk gently, as vice-chairman of my party's foreign affairs group, is Vietnam. I do not suggest to the Leader of the House that the Prime Minister should try to be a mediator. The fact is that at the time when Mr. Kosygin was here, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was negotiating with Chet Cooper and others, if there had been any chance of British mediation in the Vietnam war my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, when he was Prime Minister, would have been successful. Personally, I never thought that the Americans meant business. I was one of those who wanted my right hon. Friend to succeed but who were sceptical as to whether he had an earthly chance of doing any good in Vietnam.
The British Government should not try to pass as the great mediator. The Labour Government did not succeed and it would be wrong to talk seriously on the subject and ask another Government to do so. However, the fact remains that Britain is co-Chairman with the Russians of the Geneva Convention. We have some responsibility.
I have been by no means a Vietnam extremist. I am as friendly with America and with Americans as any hon. Member. The truth is that we thought the war, until a week ago, was being scaled down.

But now, alas, there is an entirely new situation! The resumption of bombing is as horrifying to us as it must be to many Americans.
What should the Leader of the House do about it? I should like him to give an undertaking that he will talk to the Prime Minister about the possibility of a private visit to Washington. I do not even expect any communiqué. In 1967 I had the good fortune to go to Washington and to have a long interview with Walt Rostow in his operations room under the White House. It revealed how isolated the men in power in Washington can become. With the great superstructure of power that is federal Washington, people in such positions become extremely isolated.
It is not up to me to defend the virtues of the Prime Minister. Indeed I ought to be critical. The fact remains, however, that the present British Prime Minister probably has a relationship with President Nixon, which was forged when Mr. Nixon was out of office and did not look like recovering. The Prime Minister can at least talk to him. I understand that they have a genuine affinity. It may be that the American President can let his hair down to the British Prime Minister and talk about the situation as a way that he might find difficult as President of the United States with many of his countrymen.
The belief of some of us is not so much that the American leaders are evil—although that is a sustainable argument—but that they depart from reality if they think they will bomb the North Vietnamese to the conference table, let alone into submission. How wrong and mad can they be. I had last year the good fortune to go to China. Let us be under no misapprehension that not only will the American relationship with the Chinese deteriorate but that any relationship that the Foreign Secretary and others want to build with the Chinese will also deteriorate. Although it is true that there have been improved relations between Peking and Washington, that was brought about on the assumption that the Vietnam war was running down. That assumption has been shattered. Britain, as co-Chairman of the Geneva Convention, has a responsibility to do something. I am not unaware of the difficulties of co-operating with the Russians on this


matter, but there is no reason why a British Government should not take some kind of initiative, private though it may be. The Prime Minister must find some excuse to get himself to Washington.
My third subject, about which I think the Leader of the House should talk to the Prime Minister, is the endless nagging questions about the post-Apollo programme and co-operation with the Americans. Today the Minister for Aerospace and Shipping is in Europe talking to our European partners, the technology Ministers, on the possibilities of European participation in the post-Apollo programme. It may be that the talks could settle something, but I do not think they will. Furthermore it is incontrovertible that even if the Minister gets the European Space Agency, which is but a gleam in his eye, it is at least four years off. Time is not on our side. If British firms are to get any of the major design, engineering or feasibility contracts in the post-Apollo programme, decisions must be made at the latest in the spring of next year, 1973. It will be too late after March.
This may seem an esoteric subject to some but it is not to Hawker Siddeley, the British Aircraft Corporation and many contractors throughout the country. I therefore hope that after the Minister for Aerospace and Shipping returns tonight, at least in early January there will be discussions in the Cabinet, where they must take place, as to whether we are to go it alone on a national basis or whether we are to go after this empty notion of doing it on a European Space Agency basis. If we do this on a European basis, we will not do it at all. Therefore, this subject, is urgent.
Fourthly and finally, I come to the question where we have a direct responsibility. This is the question of nuclear tests in the Pacific. It is all very well for the Prime Minister to say at Question Time, as he has on several occasions now, that the policy of the Conservative Government is no different from that of the Labour Government. That may be true, although even that is disputable. We are three, four and five years on and much has happened in the climate of the world since my right hon. Friends rightly or wrongly took their decisions. There is

a general difference in world view about the environment and pollution.
Not only that, but it is just not sufficient to say that this is not a problem about which we can do anything. When my right hon. Friends were conducting these negotiations with the French on tests, they were not within two or three weeks of joining the European Economic Community.
I do not pursue this argument too far other than to say that some of us voted on 28th October 1971 as we did partly at any rate because we believed, rightly or wrongly, that we would have some kind of political say in the general foreign policy that would be conducted by Western European States. It is shattering for a man like me who voted in that way to hear the British Prime Minister say on a subject on which civilised opinion throughout the world is more or less united, and remembering that we initiated the test ban agreement, that we have apparently no influence with the President of France.

Mr. Jay: I told my hon. Friends so.

Mr. Dalyell: My right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) is perfectly entitled to cry "I told you so"; I must accept that. I am merely saying that some of us who voted as we did care about the Commonwealth. Many of the Prime Minister's supporters who are pro-EEC also care deeply about the Commonwealth. It is humiliating to find that Australia and New Zealand, against whose passionate wishes that French decision was taken, are now asking whether we cannot do anything about the French tests.
I hope that certain specific agreements can be reached when the Secretary of State for Defence goes on tour to the Far East in early January. I hope that he will return having had long discussions with the Governments of Australia, New Zealand, Fiji and the Pitcairn Islands. We should not forget the smaller States which are even more directly affected.
I hope that when on 30th January 1 ask the Prime Minister in Question No 1 whether
he will make an official visit to Murorua Atoll
he will be able to say that he has had discussions and has been able to influence the President of France.
Therefore, on these four subjects—aliment, Vietnam, post-Apollo and nuclear tests—I hope that we can have at least the assurance that there will be some discussions with the Prime Minister.

6.54 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I thank you for calling me, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Minister for his kindness, because I understand that there was an unwritten understanding that the right hon. Gentleman would rise to wind up at about 6.45 p.m.
The main question that I want to raise is that of the homeless, and in prosecuting this question I promise not to be partisan. There has, unfortunately, always been homelessness in the big cities, particularly in London. It is getting much worse.
The Minister should call for a transcript of last Monday morning's "Today" programme on Radio 4 and listen to the tragic case of a woman who comes with her husband from the East End every night to sleep on the Embankment because she cannot get a roof over her head. This woman explained to listeners that she wraps herself in papers and cardboard in a pitiful endeavour to fend off the cold. In the morning she goes to the toilet in Embankment Gardens. She does gardening odd jobs to earn enough to pay for a bath.
That woman is only one of hundreds, possibly thousands, of people who have no homes to go to and who sleep out. Shelter has sent to every hon. Member the "Grief" report on homelessness. Hon. Members who have not already read it should do so during the recess. It is the greatest of tragedies that towards the end of the twentieth century young couples with children must sleep out in cars, on open spaces, on commons.
There are many homeless in my constituency. There is no room for them in halfway house accommodation or in local resettlement camps. Many of them have not got the money to pay economic rents.
I have taken up the case of a woman who was evicted 10 days ago. I got no promise of support from the Department of the Environment and the Home Department. I took the matter up with the Prime Minister, but he could not help.
Twenty-five thousand Ugandan Asians who were evicted and who were also homeless came here. They were temporarily rehoused, some of them in good officers' quarters. I understand that 10,000 have gone from the resettlement camps to other types of permanent or semi-permanent home. Rather than that they should have to sleep out on the Embankment, in motor cars, or in the open, our own homeless people should be given offers of accommodation in these camps, where there are now 10,000 vacancies. This would help to achieve assimilation between the two races as well as give these wretches a roof over their heads.
The Home Secretary tells me that it is intended to close these camps down. Why? They have served a useful purpose in housing Ugandan Asians. They should now be used to provide homes for our own homeless, not all of whom would want to accept. The lady whom I heard on the radio on Monday would much rather have a place like that than sleep out on the Embankment. Many of the homeless in my constituency would welcome the opportunity to go to some of these officers' quarters, if only on a temporary basis.
The Secretary of State for Social Services replied to Shelter in these terms on 13th December, inter alia:
I would like to consider with him"—
that is the Minister for Housing and Construction—
your suggestion of an early meeting and if we think it would be useful I will ask my Private Secretary to get in touch with you.
The Secretary of State and the Minister for Housing and Construction should meet these people and discuss the subject, if only to show that the Government really care and in an effort to see whether something can be done to rehouse these people at any rate early in the new year.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. David Steel: I should like to refer back to an exchange at business question time this afternoon, when the Leader of the House was asked by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) about the setting up of the Standing Committee to consider the Local Government (Scotland) Bill. I understand that the Committee is possibly due to be set up tomorrow. At


any rate, it is expected to sit immediately after the recess. News in the Lobby tonight is that it is likely to consist of 30 Members, and not to include a Liberal representative. We regard that as an extremely serious matter, because we reprsent three of the 71 Scottish constituencies, and by any standard the Bill is a major piece of legislation affecting every party and every part of Scotland—certainly, the areas we represent.
There have been long and protracted discussions between the parties about the composition of the Committee. The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock suggested this afternoon that it might be increased to 39, which would give my party as of right one representative. We should regard that as a perfectly acceptable solution.
Another possible solution, which has precedent, is that the number of 30 might be added to by one to allow a Liberal representative. That was done in this Parliament when the Committee considering the Immigration Bill was set up and we made representations to have a Liberal included. Our case was much weaker than it is now, but it was accepted, and a Committee of 31 was set up. Has that been considered as a possibility here?
The Committee as proposed will be without representation from any of the island areas to be set up under the Bill. It looks as though it will be without representation from the Border region, one of the seven regions of Scotland created in the Bill.
There is quite different consideration which does not concern the Liberal Party as such. I think that it is no secret that if we had a place on the Committee we would wish to appoint my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston), for the very good reason that he was one of the three hon. Members who toiled away on the Royal Commission on local government reform for three whole years. He is the only one now available to serve in the passage of the legislation, because Mr. Tom Fraser is no longer a Member and we now know the other as "Mr. Deputy Speaker". Therefore, it is a House of Commons matter as well as a Liberal Party matter that the one hon. Member who served on the Royal Commission is apparently to be denied the opportunity to give the benefit

of that experience to the Committee dealing with the Bill.
This is the only opportunity I have to raise the matter, on which we feel very strongly. We are not prepared to accept that my hon. Friend should be excluded from the Committee, and I do not think that the people of Scotland would accept it as fair that that should be the result of the deliberations between the parties.
Therefore, I invite the Leader of the House to say now how the Government will get out of the difficulty and how my hon. Friend can be added to the Committee, as I believe he can be with co-operation between the two major parties.

7.4 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for giving me one minute flat to say just two sentences. He will know that there has been an accumulation of disturbing evidence of corruption on a massive scale within the National Coal Board. I hope that he will use the month's recess to set up an independent public inquiry into the matter.

7.5 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. James Prior): Seventeen hon. Members have taken part in the debate, which is quite a large number in the space of time for which we have been discussing the Adjournment for the Christmas Recess.
Three hon. Members, my hon. Friends the Members for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) and Banbury (Mr. Marten) and the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop), raised various points about the Common Market and the papers available. My hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry also mentioned the problems of the animal health regulations.
The directive approved recently on animal health was similar to the directives agreed in the Treaty of Accession, which was accepted by Parliament when it approved the legislation. The modifications we secured to protect our position paralleled those secured in the negotiations on accession. They provided for the directives not to take effect here until in some cases four years' time and in other cases five years' time. During that period the position will be fully reviewed in the Community with a view to arriving at common provisions which will be


entirely acceptable to us. I think that there is a feeling on the Continent that our animal health regulations are better than theirs, and I hope very much that they will come into line with ours.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury raised a number of points. He wanted to have copies of Agence Europe available. He rather likened it to Private Eye. Agence Europe is just as available in the Library as Private Eye, except that it is probably not pinched from the Library quite so often. I suggest that that is the right place for it rather than in the Vote Office.
Arrangements have been made for the authentic English texts of binding Community legislation to be made available. Unfortunately the strike of Community staff in Brussels and Luxembourg is causing some delay, especially in respect of legislation enacted since 9th October, the date when the Commission and the Council assumed the responsibility for publishing in English in the Official Journal at the same time as in the existing Community languages. All the same most of the English texts should be published within a few days of our accession, and the remainder should become available shortly afterwards, I hope before the House returns from the recess. Therefore, if my hon. Friend cannot get them on 2nd January, as he wanted, he should be able to get at least some of them very soon after and the majority in good time for him to enjoy reading them during the holiday.
The Official Journal, the Community Bulletin and special volumes of secondary legislation will all be available to hon. Members under the green form procedure. We shall also need an adequate number of copies in the Vote Office. There will be other publications that hon. Members will need, such as copies of draft legislation. These will also be available under the same procedure. Government Departments are fully alerted to the importance of material being readily available to the House, and the Stationery Office and the Vote Office are working together on the mechanics. Therefore, we are making some progress.
The hon. Member for South Shields asked a question about meat inspection. I do not have a full answer but my recollection is that some of the regulations at present, such as those on New York

dressed chickens, would not be suitable for us, and we shall seek to have them changed. The whole question of whether there should be veterinary inspection of meat as opposed to public health inspection is one that we have still to consider. I believe that we can reach a compromise, but I understand the anxiety and the fact that time will be needed for discussion of this and many other matters over the coming months.

Mr. Blenkinsop: May I take it, therefore, that no decision about the acceptance of the regulations will be taken before the House resumes, so that we can discuss the matter more fully?

Mr. Prior: I think we have had to accept some regulations under the Treaty of Accession, but we are now seeking to have some of those regulations changed. If I have either gone not far enough or gone too far in my reply I will get in touch with the hon. Gentleman, but I think that that is the position.
The right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris), who gave me notice that he had to leave early, raised the question of the troops who on being posted to Ireland from Germany have had to pay purchase tax on their cars. He asked whether the door was closed. I give him and the House the assurance that the door is not closed and that, with my right hon. Friends, I will have another look at this matter. The right hon. Gentleman has made a strong case.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) and the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) raised housing matters. I was distressed to hear of the cases put forward by the hon. Member for Derby, North. It has never been possible to find a method of controlling house prices, which are subject to open auction, and house prices were excluded from the operation of the standstill. That does not prevent me from saying that builders should act with responsibility. I will convey in the strongest possible terms to my right hon. Friend the views of the hon. Gentleman and of many hon. Members on both sides of the House that some present practices are undesirable and that action should be taken wherever possible. I cannot go further than that, but I sympathise with the hon. Member over the cases he has presented to the House.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne referred to home ownership generally. We have to get this in proportion. Last year there was a record number of home loans, 114,000 more than in 1970. About 31 per cent. were loans to families earning not more than about £30 a week. In the first six months of this year, compared with the last six months of the previous Government, 31 per cent. more first-time purchasers, 30 per cent. more borrowers under the age of 25 and 40 per cent. more on or below the average industrial wage obtained mortgages. Despite all the problems we have had, that is not a bad record, and I strongly support what my hon. Friend said.
The right hon. Member for Battersea North (Mr. Jay) asked me a question which earlier this afternoon he had put to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The agreement reached by the Six on vehicle sizes was a regulation, and we shall seek to get that regulation changed as a result of the working party that has been set up.

Mr. Jay: Has not the right hon. Gentleman confused two things? I was not inquiring about vehicle sizes or about that regulation. I was inquiring about the allocation of licences for lorries to operate within the area. That is what the Chancellor of the Duchy spoke about today. He informed us—he may have been wrong—that this was a directive and not a regulation.

Mr. Prior: I am sorry if I mixed up the two things. I was on a different point. I am told that the licences are dealt with in a regulation.

Mr. Jay: Is the right hon. Gentleman correcting what his colleague said earlier this afternoon?

Mr. Prior: Without referring to HANSARD I cannot tell what my right hon. Friend said, but I have had the position checked and my notes state plainly that it is a regulation.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke about people trotting out the same old political arguments. My goodness, when the right hon. Gentleman gets off his record on to another we shall all be much happier. He is always on a Common Market gramophone record.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) asked about the parliamentary building and said that we should not adjourn until we had discussed it. I cannot promise him a discussion between now and Christmas, but I recognise that hon. Gentlemen will want to discuss it. I hope that they will not judge the naw building by the unfortunate happenings over the car park. It would be a great mistake to get the two things mixed up emotionally.
My hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Jeffrey Archer) asked me whether I would visit Louth between now and Friday. I cannot do that but I shall be in his constituency on Boxing Day—and that is not bad going. I will see that his views on the problems of Humberside and the great variation in Humberside as a result of its enlargement are conveyed to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Representing as I do an East Anglian constituency, I hope that the Chairman of the IBA will look again at the question of Anglia Television. There is absolulety unanimous support on both sides of the House by every hon. Member representing an East Anglian constituency. We are in fairly close touch with our constituents and if they want to have the choice of Anglia or Yorkshire television, as we know they do, they should not readily be denied that choice. The Chairman of the IBA knows my views on this but I shall, as a constituency Member, be writing to him again before long on this subject.
The hon. Members for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) and Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) raised with me the question of the £3 million fund set up by the Government and the problems of thalidomide. It was suggested that a great deal more information should be made available about who was to receive the money, how the grants were to be made and other matters. The hon. Gentleman will know from the answer to a parliamentary Question that the Joseph Rowntree Memorial Trust will administer the fund and that the help is intended for those parents who have not the resources to help themselves. Those eligible will be parents of children under 16 who are very seriously congenitally disabled, either physically or mentally, either before, during or immediately after birth,


including thalidomide children, those suffering from spina bifida, spastics, the mentally handicapped, the totally deaf and the totally blind. Exceptionally, help may be given at the descretion of the trustees to parents with very severely handicapped young people over the age of 16.
The number of parents who will be eligible for help cannot be estimated in advance, since need for help will depend on the parents' circumstances and the services they are receiving from other sources. The trust will be guided by professional advice in the assessment of the severity of the handicapped. The number of children in the categories instanced is thus no guide to the number that the trust will help.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Is it not scandalous that we do not know how many severely congenitally handicapped people, including thalidomide children and their families, will benefit from this fund? Surely policy-making is blind if the right hon. Gentleman is unable to say how many people will be included.

Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do, because we have both taken an interest in this distressing subject for many years, that there have been difficulties in obtaining accurate statistics. Therefore, in this context I do not think that he should use words like "scandalous". We are not so much concerned with the numbers involved but with those who will need help. This will take some time. The scheme is due to begin operating on 1st April and I do not think that many of the people who benefit will feel that a scheme announced only on 29th November and due to start on 1st April has been the subject of any delay.

Mr. Edward Short: I should like to press the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris), who is on a very real issue in stressing that we do not know the number of children involved. Does the right hon. Gentleman know that in June 1970 the present Prime Minister said that if the Conservatives were elected they would carry out a proper inquiry? I have pressed the Secretary of State for Education and Science many times since that date to set up this inquiry and my request has always been refused. If the right hon. Gentleman

wishes me to do so, I can send him a facsimile copy of the Prime Minister's letter. Will the right hon. Gentleman look at this matter again, because nobody seems to know the full size of the problem involving handicapped children and we shall not do so unless there is a major Plowden-type inquiry.

Mr. Prior: I shall look at any information sent to me by the right hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Edward Short). Some years ago there was a sample inquiry which was designed to illustrate the size of the problem of disability generally. I am not certain how far that was extended. I am prepared to consult my right hon. Friend to see how much further we can carry the matter.
I turn to the subject of the Distillers Company and the remarks of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South. No formal approach has been made by the Government to the Distillers Company. If an approach is made, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to consider any question of a change in the tax law.
The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) asked me four questions. They were all matters which the hon. Gentleman asked me to convey to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the form of what he described as four Christmas messages. None of them is particularly easy to solve, but nevertheless I suppose they are messages for all of that.
The first point dealt with the work of the committee under Mr. Finer on the subject of one-parent families. I shall consult my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Social Services on the points raised by the hon. Gentleman about the work of that committee. I have noted the point about delay in any report from that committee and I will see that that message is conveyed.
On the questions of Vietnam, the post-Apollo programme and nuclear tests, the hon. Gentleman recognised the difficulties contained in all these matters for any British Government. Again, I can only promise to let my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister know about the exchanges which have taken place this afternoon.
The hon. Gentleman should not consider that he made a mistake by voting for EEC membership in the belief that, in time, Britain would have more authority and influence over its European partners. I am certain that that will happen. I am equally certain that if we stayed out there would be no earthly chance of our having any influence over anybody. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman need have no worries about the action he took on that occasion.

Mr. Dalyell: But is it not a little disheartening to find that on an issue on which the overwhelming opinion of the civilised world is against tests we do not have any influence, and is this not a humiliating experience for us?

Mr. Prior: I have no doubt that the French Government are well aware of the views expressed on this matter in this House and in other places. I am certain that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister knows of these views. The hon. Gentleman suggested that my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Defence should consult the Governments in the Antipodes when he makes his tour at the end of January and the beginning of February. Again, I shall see that my noble Friend, the Secretary of State for Defence is made aware of those views.
The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) asked me to obtain a copy of the transcript of a broadcast which was made last Monday on the subject of homelessness. I shall certainly do so, and if my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Social Services and the Secretary of State for the Environment have not read the transcript, I shall draw it to their attention.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) raised the question—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the question of homelessness, may I remind him that I have raised with the Prime Minister and with the Department of the Environment a case involving a constituent, and nothing has been done about it? Could the right hon. Gentleman give me some hope on this case?

Mr. Prior: Most of these matters should be dealt with by local authorities. I recognise that there is a serious problem of homelessness, which we all deplore. A number of people are homeless because for one reason or another they prefer it that way, but there are a number who are homeless through no fault of their own. This is a blot on society which we should do everything in our power to put right.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles raised the problem of the Standing Committee on the Local Government (Scotland) Bill. The Government would have been willing to have seen the Committee's membership increased by one Member to 31 Members. This would have meant that the Committee compared very favourably with that which considered the Local Government Bill relating to England and Wales last Session. The extra place under the rules would have provided a place for a Liberal Member. Unfortunately this is not possible under the rules without the co-operation of the Opposition. If the Opposition are prepared to co-operate, we can have the extra Member; but if they are not prepared to co-operate, I am afraid that it will not be possible.

Mr. William Ross: I am sure that the Liberal Party is not seeking any particular privilege on this point. A total of three Liberal Members in Scotland are being denied a place on the Committee and I regret it, but it should also be emphasised that 30 Labour Members are being denied a place. Every one of them would have been very concerned to take the extra place. The solution to this problem is easy. The Government have only to increase the size of the Committee from 30 to 39. That would provide more places for the Labour Party, it would provide a place for the Liberal Party and it would also give more places to the Conservatives. It is as simple as that.

Mr. Prior: It is not as simple as that. Last Session on the Local Government Bill for England and Wales there were 35 hon. Members serving on the Committee. I must emphasise that 30 Members on the Local Government (Scotland) Bill is a considerable number. This could be solved


by agreeing one extra on the Committee and in the case of the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles, who is a member of the Wheatley Commission, I do not think that it would be carrying things too far. I am sorry if we cannot agree about this, and I suggest that we have one more try to reach agreement. For the time being, I am afraid that I have to say that 30 is the number.

Mr. David Steel: As I said earlier, either solution or, indeed, any other will be acceptable. But I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will make one more effort at getting agreement. It would be outrageous if at the end of the day the Liberal Party were denied a place on the Committee because of some internal wrangle.

Mr. Ross: The Labour Party considers it outrageous when we have 44 Scottish Members, and when there are 25 Conservatives, three Liberals and one Scottish Nationalist, and we are limited to 14 Members. That is the difficulty. Until a few years ago every Scottish Member of Parliament was entitled to be on a Committee considering the Committee stage of a Scottish Bill or on the Scottish Grand Committee. That was altered only last Session, and I am afraid that I do not recollect any Liberal Member being with us. We objected to the reduction in the size of the Scottish Committee. The Government must bear the responsibility. The solution is theirs, without creating any privileges, to increase the number by nine to 39.

Mr. Prior: I do not think that that would be a reasonable outcome. One cannot have every Scottish Member on a Standing Committee. If that were so it could be argued that every hon. Member from an English or Welsh constituency should have been on the Standing Committee which considered the Bill for England and Wales. We had better try to see whether we can reach agreement. One extra Member would not make that much difference to the representation on the Committee and, in view of the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles having served on the Wheatley Commis-

sion, I think in this case it would be fair. But I am not pressing this point. We cannot do it without co-operation. If we cannot have co-operation, I am afraid that we shall be unable to agree.
The hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) got his point on the record, and I have no doubt that it will be noted.
I turn finally to the right hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central, who opened the debate in a highly political manner. No doubt he was trying to show the unfortunate Labour candidate at Sutton and Cheam just what we should have said and to prove to his colleagues in the Tribune group that he knew what he was talking about. But having said that, if right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side use the Christmas Recess to consult their constituents I am certain they will find that they have many questions to answer, not least why the Labour Party has stood on its head on every policy issue that it pursued in government—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Lame ducks?

Mr. Prior: —and why the country is refusing to support a party which is concerned with rather fractious opposition.

Mr. Lewis: No unemployment?

Mr. Prior: I conclude my remarks by wishing the House and all the families of people in the House a very happy Christmas. I couple with them all those members of the staff who serve us so well.

Mr. Edward Short: May I add one word, with the leave of the House? I do not intend to make another speech. I think that this is a rotten Government, but that does not deter me from associating myself with the right hon. Gentleman's remarks in wishing all Members of the House and their families and the servants of the House who serve us so well a very happy Christmas and all good things for 1973.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House at its rising on Friday do adjourn till Monday 22nd January 1973.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That it the Pensioners' Payments and National Insurance Contributions Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House, further proceedings on the Bill stand postponed, and that as soon as the Proceedings on any Resolution come to by the House on Pensioners' Payments and National Insurance Contributions [Money] have been concluded, this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.—[Mr. Fox.]

Orders of the Day — PENSIONERS' PAYMENTS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

7.36 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Paul Dean): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Nearly 7¾ million pensioners have received their £10 special lump sum payment in good time for Christmas, and I am sure that the House will wish to pay tribute to the sterling work and the Christmas spirit of the Post Office and Department staff who have successfully carried through this major operation. Many "thank you" letters have been received from those who have benefited from the payment. Perhaps I might read two sentences from one of them which express the sentiments which have been conveyed to the Government from so many quarters. They read:
Having drawn my £10 pension as a retirement pensioner yesterday I wish to send my thanks for this kind and thoughtful gesture. It will be a great help to many who have retired, and some form of gratitude is desirable.
None the less, there has been disappointment amongst retirement pensioners whose pensions were cancelled under the earnings rule. We now realise, as did the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) in her Bill, that because of the urgency and speed with which the lump sum payment was carried out we did not succeed in making it clear that pensioners whose earnings were high enough to cancel their pensions completely were not eligible. Expectations were aroused which were later disappointed. So the Government have responded quickly with this Bill.
Clause 1 enables the £10 to be paid to about 7,000 pensioners who were not entitled to a pension for the week beginning 4th December on account of their earnings. It also includes a pensioner with an entitlement to an increase in his retirement pension for his wife over the age of 60 but who did not receive that increase for the week beginning 4th


December either because of his or his wife's earnings. This Bill, like the last, does not include anyone under the retirement age. The additional cost will be about £75,000, which will be met entirely by Exchequer funds.
As regards payment, I hope that it will be possible for the Department to identify and pay the great majority of pensioners concerned by the middle of January. However, there will be a few pensioners whose identification may not be possible. Any pensioner who has not received the £10 for himself or for his wife by mid-January should, therefore, net in touch with his nearest local social security office.
Naturally, it will be asked why we cannot pay this pension in time for Christmas. I need hardly remind the House of the obvious point that Christmas is very nearly with us. However, the main reason is that the great majority of the 7,000 pensioners concerned do not have pension order books and, therefore, the Post Office has no means of identifying them as being entitled to the payment. The majority will be identified and will get payment by Giro order from our central office in Newcastle, and I hope that this will be during the first week in January. The remainder will be identified and paid from our local offices, and I hope that this will be completed in the second week in January. Clearly, if we could have paid earlier it would have been our wish to do so. But, as I hope the House appreciates, the very speedy operation which was possible with the majority of retirement pensioners who had order books and could be readily identified by post offices is not possible in this case.
Clause 2 removes a legal doubt about the correctness of the basis on which graduated pensions under Section 4(2) of the National Insurance Act 1965 are assessed. When graduated contributions were introduced in April 1961 the intention, which Parliament fully understood, was that the basis of assessment should be the gross remuneration of employees; that is, remuneration inclusive of expenses which they were obliged to meet from their pay for tools, protective clothing and superannuation contributions, for which they could claim relief from income tax. This intention was borne out in practice.
Doubt has now been expressed whether the form of words contained in Section 4(2), which re-enacts Section 2(1) of the 1959 Act introducing graduated contributions, was competent for this purpose on the ground that these allowable expenses are neither remuneration assessable to income tax under Schedule E nor sums from which tax under that schedule was deductible. The Bill, therefore, provides for the collection of graduated contributions to continue on the basis approved by successive Parliaments.
I am grateful to the Opposition and to the whole House for agreeing to facilitate the passage of the Bill, which I have much pleasure in commending to the House.

7.41 p.m.

Mr. Brian O'Malley: The Opposition welcome the Bill which reflects a change of mind by the Government. This change of mind has been forced on the Government first by the pressures of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and secondly, we should recognise, by the pressures of the British Press. The Press is often criticised in this House, but on this occasion the part played by national and regional newspapers in persuading the Government to change their mind has been significant.
I think that the Under-Secretary was a little ungracious towards my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn. He mentioned that the Bill sought to make payment of the £10 bonus to retirement pensioners who were excluded previously as a result of the earnings rule and that my right hon. Friend's Bill sought to do the same. This Bill appears as the result of the production of a Bill by my right hon. Friend. I suggest, in a very friendly Christmas spirit, that these 7,000 pensioners who are to receive the £10 bonus early in the New Year can thank my right hon. Friend and the British Press for the pressure that they have put on the Government. So this Pensioners' Payments and National Insurance Contributions Bill takes its place in the long saga of inconsistencies which make up much of the history of the present Government.

Mr. J. R. Kinsey: I should like to point out to the hon. Gentleman that there were pressures


other than those of his right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn. In fact the 1922 Committee, on a resolution proposed by me, was moving in that direction as well.

Mr. O'Malley: I am fascinated to hear a report of the activities and discussions of the 1922 Committee. We look forward to open revelations of this kind in future. We hope to be given detailed information of that kind.
The reason for this Bill is not that the Government made a mistake in the earlier Bill or that they intended all along that pensioners excluded by the earnings rule should receive the benefit. In fact the Government have become so sensitive about repeated charges of incompetence that they made it clear in HANSARD that, as a matter of deliberate policy, originally in the first £10 bonus Bill they intended to exclude, and indeed did exclude, these pensioners. For that we have the evidence of the Under-Secretary of State on 20th November 1972, at column 1028, and the Secretary of State himself who on 12th December, in reply to a question by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, said:
I have seen the case to which the right hon. Lady refers. It was explained to the House that in order to make the payment before Christmas we had to have a rough and ready arrangement—a mechanism by which the Post Office could recognise without error the people who were entitled. For that reason we had to choose those who were entitled to a pension on the week in question. Those who had earnings—and most of them are regular earnings, although not all—disentitled themselves to a pension. For that very small number, that is one of the consequences of making the payment so quickly."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th December 1972; Vol 848, c. 207.]
So it was the Government's deliberate intention to exclude 7,000 elderly people from receiving this benefit.
The implication is quite startling. It meant that about 7,000 pensioners would receive £18·25 in earnings and, as the result of those earnings, lose £16·75—the £10 bonus and the £6·75 retirement pension for a single person. Therefore, as a result of earning £18·25 they would have been £1·50 better off, minus tax. The Government were operating an effective tax rate of about 100 per cent. This was the poverty trap with a vengeance and a deliberate decision by the Government to exclude these pensioners from payment.
I believe that the House has substantial grounds for complaint at the Government because they have produced a Bill with a Long Title and a Money Resolution so carefully and tightly drafted that it is impossible for either the Opposition or any hon. Gentleman on the Government side to draft amendments seeking to make payments for widows, the longterm sick, the disabled and the longterm unemployed.
The Under-Secretary has explained that these categories of people were excluded because the Government wanted to make the payment quickly before Christmas. As we are now rightly making payments to people with earnings, whom the Government say cannot be paid before Christmas, may I ask why they cannot do something for widows, the long-term sick and the disabled? These people, who are on pensions of £6·75 a week, need our Christmas best wishes. When I heard the Leader of the House wish us all a happy Christmas only a few minutes ago, I was tempted to ask "What about the widows, the long-term sick and the disabled who are being excluded as a result of this Bill?" Therefore, we are entitled to complain at the tight way the Government have drafted the Money Resolution and the Long Title of the Bill.
The hon. Gentleman said that the Government had received a considerable number of letters expressing satisfaction about the receipt of the £10 Christmas bonus.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: More than the hon. Gentleman ever received.

Mr. O'Malley: I have received a substantial number of letters from widows, the long-term sick and disabled who ask why they cannot be paid this money. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that this is such a generous Government—

Mr. Cormack: More generous than the Labour Government.

Mr. O'Malley: That is the implication of the hon. Gentleman's sedentary shouts at me—why does he not persuade his Government—he is a man of influence in the Department; he is a PPS—to make this payment early in the New Year to widows, the long-term sick and other categories?
The Opposition are happy to facilitate the Bill in the closing stages of the


Parliamentary Session before Christmas, because we think it right that these thousands of pensioners who are earning a little extra money for Christmas should receive the £10 bonus along with other retirement pensioners.
Even at this stage the Opposition are prevented from putting down amendments to obtain the benefit for widows and other needy and deserving categories of pensioners and other social security recipients. We cannot make that change, but the Government can. If they will not do it through this Bill, will they ensure that these pensioners get the £10 bonus early in the New Year? They should have received it under the original Bill, and it is sad that the Government, having had the opportunity to make the necessary change, have introduced a second Bill and still refused to provide this benefit for millions of widows and others with families, and many long-term sick and disabled people.
That is one Christmas thought which the Opposition leave with the Government, and I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will be able to do something about it.

7.50 p.m.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: Of course I welcome the Bill, for the simple reason that it is almost identical with the draft Bill that I sent to the Secretary of State on Wednesday, 13th December. I sent it to him because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) said, the Press had done an excellent job in bringing to light this anomaly in the Government's provision. I sent it to the right hon. Gentleman because on Monday of that week I challenged him at Question time on what he was going to do to put right the anomaly and he made it clear that he intended doing nothing about it. My hon. Friend is right. This was not an administrative slip. It was not an instance of something being overlooked. The Secretary of State made it clear—and it has been made clear again since—that the Government intended to exclude this group of people.
Why have the Government changed their mind? I agree with my hon. Friend. Both this evening and during the last few days we have experienced parsimony and a lack of generosity by the Government.

There has been a failure to recognise that it is pressure from the Press and from this side of the House that has compelled the Government to introduce the Bill.
There is only one person who deserves credit for the Bill, and it is not the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State. It is my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Leonard) to whom I pay tribute. It was he who made it possible for me to announce the introduction of a Ten-Minute Rule Bill which forced the Government to act. I was too late to get a spot of my own in the Ten-Minute Rule list before the House rose for the Christmas Recess, so I went to see my hon. Friend. He had risen at 5 a.m. to get his own Bill in—the LifePeers Change of Style and Rank Bill—but when I explained that this was one opportunity to force the Government to deal with the anomaly in the payment of bonus he replied, "Pensioners come before peers, and I shall give you my place in the Ten-Minute Rule Bill queue:" The Minister knows that if I had not obtained that position in the queue, and that if the draft Bill which proved conclusively that this anomaly could be cured very easily—very much on the lines which the Government had adopted today—had not been sent to his right hon. Friend the Bill now being considered would not have been before the House tonight.
The Secretary of State has been totally perfunctory in his treatment of the House. He ought to have been here this evening. We are still waiting to see him in the Committee considering the Social Security Bill, a major piece of legislation. There have been four sittings of the Committee, but the right hon. Gentleman has not turned up once. What is more, the right hon. Gentleman did not even bother to answer the letter that I wrote offering him the draft Bill, offering to allow the Government to substitute their measure for my Bill, and offering every facility to get it through the House. The right hon. Gentleman did not bother to answer until he had made an announcement to the Press. Equally, he has not bothered to come to the House this afternoon to answer a letter which I sent him yesterday explaining how I thought his £10 bonus could be paid this week for at least a number of the 7,000 people who have been excluded.
The Under-Secretary of State has proved my point. He said that because a number of the 7,000 affected were in permanent employment they did not have a retirement pension book: but there are at least 1,500 who have. That is the figure that I have obtained from our own research department and from the hon. Gentleman's Department. There are at least 1,500 casual workers who have a retirement pension book. I wrote to the Secretary of State and asked him to consider, before tonight's debate, the possibility of somebody from his Department going on television this evening and saying that anybody who has a retirement pension book that has not been stamped because the bonus has not been received can go to the post office before Christmas and get the money.
Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that it is the casual workers, the people who are not in regular, high-earning employment, who need this 10 quid before Christmas? If the Secretary of State had felt not only the need for courtesy in his dealings with the House but a sense of sympathy for and identification with the needs of humble people, he would not have continued ignoring my appeals to him and gone to the country and tried to claim credit for the generousheartedness of the Government. If the Government really cared it would be possible to make an announcement tonight that the bonus will be paid.
I shall not hold up the passage of the Bill. I shall keep my promise to facilitate its passage. It will go through all its stages tonight, and there is no reason why at least 2,000 hard-hit retirement pensioners should not get the bonus this week. I deeply regret that the Secretary of State has not done the House the courtesy of explaining why the arrangements which I suggested in my letter cannot be carried out.
The procedure is simple. My own mother had her £10 bonus paid automatically on her retirement pension book. No identification was needed, nor were any elaborate administrative changes necessary. Her authorised agent presented her book in the week beginning 4th December, found there was a £10 bonus in the packet, and her book was stamped accordingly. There is no reason

why that should not be done this week for any of the people who carry a retirement pension book, and I deplore the casual heartlessness of the Government.
The Under-Secretary of State was very smug. He said that he had to read at least one letter of gratitude. Let me tell him that I have received about 400 letters on this issue since I announced that I was introducing my Bill, which I have now withdrawn in favour of the Government's Bill. Many of the writers said "Thank you for raising this anomaly. Keep up the battle and help us to get the bonus because we need it." The vast majority of the letters were from people who said "When you introduce your Bill will you carry it a little further? I am a widow "—or a war widow, or on an invalidity pension, or chronically disabled—" and the money would help." One group of people feel particularly bitter about the Government's policy. I am thinking about the wife of the old-age pensioner who is not allowed to get her £10 because she is not 60, although the family is dependent upon the retirement pension.
All these points were raised in Committee on the Government's original Bill. We pressed our amendments but we were turned down, and I join my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham in saying that our pleasure in having forced the Government to act as they have done is tempered by our deep regret that they have not been generous to all those who are in need.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Dean: With your leave, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of the House, perhaps I might reply briefly to some of the points raised.
I very much regret that the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) should have used this occasion to make an attack on my right hon. Friend.

Mrs. Castle: He is not here.

Mr. Dean: My right hon. Friend is well-known for his courtesy to the House and for his practical support for pensioners—

Mrs. Castle: Where is he?

Mr. Dean: —and the other people for whom this very large Department is responsible.
With regard to the reply, the right hon. Lady knows that my right hon. Friend replied to her on Friday afternoon and that he took considerable trouble to ensure that the reply was personally delivered to her and that she knew on the telephone what was in it.

Mrs. Castle: That reply was not sent to me, nor were the contents divulged to me, until after the Government's announcement had been made on the one o'clock news. The first notice that I had of the Government's intention to respond to my overtures came from the Press, because the Secretary of State's letter to me at that time had not even been signed.

Mr. Dean: I am afraid that the right hon. Lady has misunderstood this. Anything which was said on the one o'clock news that day did not emanate from the Department. It may have been speculation on the part of the Press, but it did not emanate from the Department. She received the letter, or details of what was in the letter, at the earliest possible moment.
The right hon. Lady asked whether it would not be possible to pay the bonus before Christmas to those who have order books; she recognised that it would not be possible for those who have not. The answer, I am afraid, is that it would mean sending detailed instructions to all the post offices in the country, and that simply is not possible, given the best of good will, between now and Christmas.
The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) rather pulled our legs for changing our minds. We are proud to change our minds if events prove that we should do so, and that is what we have done in this Bill.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned widows and other people, invalidity pensioners and the like, under the age of 60. But it was necessary to decide, in a speedy operation of this kind, where to draw the line. The most practical and effective line was to draw it at the retirement age. But these deserving sections of the community are now benefiting from the annual review of pensions and other benefits which the Government have introduced for the first time. This Bill is part of a major operation which we are very glad that we have been able to carry out in very quick time.

8.2 p.m.

Mr. Alfred Morris: My right hon. and hon. Friends have spoken not only briskly but with marked restraint. The Minister seemed to resent what he called a severe personal attack on his right hon. Friend. What my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) was mainly emphasising is that the Secretary of State should have been in the House for this important debate. We have still had no explanation of his absence.
We are, of course, pleased to facilitate the passage of the Bill. It removes one anomaly, but regrettably, only one. As already noted, there are other important anomalies in the legislation. The Minister knows how much I regret the exclusion of widows, the long-term sick and the disabled. In far too many cases today both "disablement" and "widowhood" are but other words for poverty.
It is well acknowledged that the poorer one is the more of one's income is spent on food and warmth. For some of the very poorest people there often has to be a choice between food and warmth. It is a very sombre choice. Even if the cost of food and warmth'is ignored the living costs of disabled people are higher than those of other people. This was eloquently explained by the Government themselves in a circular dated 17th August 1970 which went to all local authorities in England and Wales.
This occasion is one for paying special tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn. She generously informed the House of the help given to her by our hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Leonard). It has been emphasised that the Government's Bill is almost identical to that presented by my right hon. Friend. Yet there is perhaps one important difference. I am sure that my right hon. Friend would have been not only more prepared but anxious to accept amendments which would benefit the long-term sick and disabled than are the Government.
The hon. Gentleman referred to one letter among many that he has received from those who are grateful for this bonus. He has not said how many letters he has received from those who have been left out. He may like to know that I have been inundated with letters from widows, as well as from long-term sick


and disabled people, who say "We are among the poorest in the country. Why should we have been excluded?"
Nevertheless, we have made it clear that we will facilitate the passage of the Bill, and we are pleased to agree that it should go forward with the minimum possible delay.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Goodhew.]

Further proceedings stood postponed, pursuant to the Order of the House this day.

PENSIONERS' PAYMENTS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That is expedient to authorise any increase in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament under section 1 of the Pensioners' and Family Income Supplement Payments Act 1972, being an increase attributable to an Act of the present Session extending entitlement under that section (in respect of themselves and their spouses satisfying the conditions of section 1(1)(a) and (b) of the said Act of 1972) to retirement pensioners under the National Insurance Acts, when otherwise disentitled by the operation of the earnings rule.—[Mr. Dean.]

PENSIONERS' PAYMENTS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS BILL

Considered in Committee pursuant to the Order of the House this day.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

RATE SUPPORT GRANT

8.9 p.m.

The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): I beg to move,
That the Rate Support Grant Order 1972, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th November, be approved.
If it be your wish, Mr. Deputy Speaker, perhaps we could debate at the same time the second motion,
That the Rate Support Grant (Increase) Order 1972, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th November, be approved.
This Rate Support Grant Order which I am moving is the fourth such order to be made under Section 2 of the Local Government Act 1966. For the first time it covers only one year. Previous orders have covered two years. On this occasion, the order is for the final year before local government reorganisation.
In making each such order, successive Governments have had to have regard to the growth of services and the need to restrain public expenditure. This year the need to keep down the level of rates, as a part of the national effort to control inflation, has been a primary consideration. I am very grateful that the local authorities, through their associations, have agreed with us on the importance of this objective.
First, the mechanics of the rate support grant. In consultation with representatives of local government, we first seek to arrive at a realistic estimate of what local authority expenditure is likely to be in the year in question, based on the continuance of existing policies and the levels of services. Then we take account of the extent of possible improvements to those services. Finally we consider the overall rate of grant that should be provided in respect of the total forecast expenditure thus agreed with the local authority associations. All the figures we are discussing this evening in connection with the order are global totals representing the sum of the activities of some 1,400 local authorities. There are, of course, wide variations between individual authorities.
The negotiations between the local authorities and my Department deal with a difficult and complex subject. I pay


tribute to the teams of local government and central Government officials who jointly collect the information and prepare the analyses which form the basis for these discussions. Many hours are spent on detailed exploration of the material and examination of means to improve forecasts and so on. I wish to express our appreciation of the spirit in which this year's complicated consultations were carried out and the very close agreement which was eventually achieved.
In arriving at forecasts of current expenditure for next year we are guided by the evidence of performance in past years and by the best projections available to us of significant factors for the future. But obviously, behind this apparently abstract financial calculation and this sort of counting of heads there is a serious concern with the contribution which local government makes to the standard of life of our people. We all know of the need for more and better schools and roads, more police, better services for the old and infirm and so on. But it is ironic, perhaps, that we all have less enthusiasm to pay the rates and taxes to meet the expenses of those services.
In the assessment of relevant expenditure, the Act requires my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to take into account both the needs of developing services and the extent to which having regard to economic conditions, it is reasonable to develop them over the relevant years.
To deal with the major items of services, I will mention first education. Education with its associate services accounts for about half of the relevant expenditure, and the relevant expenditure works out at £5,216 million. The House will have the opportunity at another time to debate the comprehensive review of the future of this service recently produced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, but that wonderful 10-year programme which she has put before the House does not involve any measurable expenditure to come into the accounts for next year, so that for the purpose of this order it has not been necessary to take into account any extra expenditure in that respect. But we have taken fully into account the fact that expenditure on education generally and on further education in particular is rising

more rapidly than we forecast two years ago. We have also taken into account the extent to which those same factors will continue to lead to a growth in education expenditure.
Coming to another major item, health and personal social services, the Government welcome the development of the health services in 1971–72 and have provided for continued growth, growth in real terms, of about 4½ per cent. a year prior to the transfer to area health authorities which is planned for 1974. The personal social services are growing fast and need to continue to grow. The forecasts provide for growth between 1971–72 and 1973–74 of 10 per cent. a year in real terms, and during those two years there is provision for an increase of over one-third in social work staff and for a 50 per cent. increase in expenditure on services for the handicapped. These are the sort of things and the quite substantial figures which we have had to take into account in ascertaining the whole relevant expenditure.
Another important item is that of the police. The Government are concerned that deficiencies in the strength of the police should be made good as soon as possible, and the estimate of expenditure included in this item of relevant expenditure provides for as many as 4,000 additional policemen. This will be a greater increase than has been achieved previously in any recent years; but the Government believe that the figures can be reached and, indeed, we shall encourage police authorities in their recruitment efforts.
Finally, on the items in expenditure, we have made provision for a steady growth in expenditure on the matters with which my Department is particularly concerned, the environmental services generally.
Having considered all these service forecasts separately and then having added them up, it became quite apparent that overall they represented a very substantial increase in expenditure at a time when it was important that public expenditure should be restrained. We ask each local authority to continue to make every effort to secure economies, and we believe it should be possible to secure those economies. In recognition of that, we have made a token reduction of £10 million in the overall forecast.
The report which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State laid before the House provides more details of the calculations we have made and the factors we have taken into account. From the report, the House will see that the aggregate forecast of relevant expenditure finally arrived at is the figure of £5,216 million I have mentioned. After allowing for inflation, this is about 12½ per cent. greater, in real terms, than the expenditure actually incurred in 1971–72. One may complain about this increase of local government expenditure, but at the same time there is the demand for sustained growth in the services which local government provides, not only in quantity but in quality as well, and we must meet the fact that local government expenditure will rise in this way. It represents over £2 a week for every man, woman and child in England and Wales.
I turn to the question of the rate of grant which the Government are to provide in support of this expenditure. We are dealing this year with a higher rate of expenditure than previously, at a time when the Government are anxious that the level of rates should be held down as an act of deliberate policy in the national interest. If that is the Government's policy, as it is, obviously the Government have to come in to assist in keeping the rates down to a reasonable level.
The Government's immediate policy with regard to rates is to keep the overall rise in rates to a level compatible with the Government's policies on prices and incomes while recognising, of course, that local variations will be inevitable. That is the immediate policy. In the longer term I go much further than that. My aim is to bring rates down. This is such a revolutionary idea that I would not expect to achieve it in a matter of a year. One delaying factor is that the battle must not be destructive.
In value for money, rates really are the best buy. Think of all the services which one gets for the rates one pays—roads, schools, sewerage, refuse collection and disposal, street lighting and a host of other services. Therefore, in bringing rates down we must not bring down the quantity or quality of those services. Local authority expenditure on local authority services is likely to increase. But I do aim at reducing the share of

that expenditure which the householder has to pay—not this coming year, because although by local government reorganisation we have given councils the great opportunity to achieve business efficiency in the administration of local affairs, the new councils will not be born until 1974 and, like every other conception and birth, it gets worse before it gets better.
In the meantime we can get the system of rating fair and just as between one ratepayer and another. That is indeed what is done by rating revaluation, which comes before the public at just about the same time as we are debating this order. The present rateable value of a house—that figure which appears in the rate demand note as the figure by which the council's so-much in the pound is multiplied in order to tell the ratepayer what he owes—is based on the amount of rent one could have got for the house 10 years ago.
The House will not be surprised to learn that a tenant will pay one and a half times more for it now; at least, that is the average over all the dwellings in the country. Of course it may be that the neighbourhood has gone down a bit in those 10 years and the houses on the other side of the dual carriageway may have become very much more fashionable and select. If so, the former has been paying more than its fair share of the rates and it is time that the properties were revalued and fairness and justice restored. That is what we have done in revaluation.
If at the moment the rateable value is £100—that is the rent one would have got for one's house 10 years ago—from 1st April next it will be about £250. That jump would not have been so big if the last Labour Government had not postponed the revaluation which was due five years ago. Not only would the jump have been smaller but the injustice as between one ratepayer and another would have been much less.
How does this revaluation affect the rates one has to pay, and how do we take it into account in the rate support grant? To coin an unfortunate phrase, how does it affect the £ in one's pocket rather than the on the valuation list? Perhaps I may be a little elementary, because I have found that so many reports on this in newspapers have not really grasped the situation. Taking


round figures, suppose that rates this year were 100p in the £; on a rateable value of £100 one pays £100 in general rates. Next year the rateable value may be £250. For the local council to get the same amount out of the householder the rates will be 40p in the £, instead of 100p in the £.
Each spring the council decides how much it needs in order to run the town until the following spring. If it can manage on the same amount as last year, the rate poundages—that is, the rates in the £—will be only two-fifths of this year's figure. If this year's figure was 100p in the it will come down next year to 40p in the £. I am sorry if I am being elementary to some hon. Members, but one needs to take it right down to basic facts like that.
I am aware that in some towns the average increase in rateable value of dwellings has gone up beyond the average of two and a half times. The average increase in rateable value of industrial and commercial property has gone up less than two and a half times. Particularly is that the case in the city represented by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell). The result is that in any town or city like that, the householder will have to bear a larger share of the total rates to be collected by the town or city. But the fact is that in other towns exactly the opposite will happen. It may happen in two towns next to each other. I see that Southampton gains out of the revaluation, while Portsmouth loses—not very much either way, but that is how it works.
Variations seem to work throughout the country in that way. If in Birmingham the earnings are such that people are prepared to pay higher rents for their property than, for example, in Bradford where the earnings are low, that is obviously represented in the revaluation. Generally speaking, it is the conurbations which come out worst, and I realise the need to ensure that future grant distribution is fairer in the conurbations than it has been in the past. I must not anticipate any future legislation on local government finance; I merely say that I am aware of the fact.
I have been basing my figures and examples on assuming that the council will collect the same amount in total next year as it has collected this year, but we

all know that the cost of wages and materials has gone up since last year and there will be a growth in the services provided by local councils. The council will not be able to manage on exactly the same amount next year as it has done this year. This is where the Government help with the rate support grant. Next year the Government will pay 60 per cent. of what the local council spends on providing the local government services I have mentioned. Industry and commerce will pay in rates about half the remaining 40 per cent., and the householder comes in to contribute by paying in his rates the remaining 20 per cent. So the householder pays one-fifth of the cost of the services which he gets out of his local council.
The 60 per cent. from the Government is the largest-ever contribution that any Government have made to local authorities. It is £400 million more than that which they decided to give last year on a 58 per cent. basis. If the 58 per cent. basis had been carried forward into this year, the real increase would be £104 million more than last year. But we are determined to see that that contribution goes mainly to the householders. The very substantial sum of 6p in the £ will be knocked off every rate-paying householder's bill. Therefore, in the sum I worked out the final figure of rate poundage would be 34p in the £ and not 40p in the £. This would appear on the rate demand note: 40p in the £ minus 6p The operative rate poundage is 34p.
Of the £104 million extra this year—the extra caused by raising the rate support grant from 58 per cent. to 60 per cent.£61 million will be taken up by the 6p subsidy to the rate-paying householder. The domestic ratepayer will also benefit from one-half of the balance, so the rate-paying householder will benefit from a subsidy of £83 million. Against that must be set the redistribution of burdens arising from revaluation, which I estimate at £20 million, making a net benefit to the domestic ratepayer of over £60 million.
I said that my aim was to bring the rates down. I mean not only the rate in the £ but the actual amount payable by the householder. I have mentioned four ways in which that can be done: streamlining local government and administration; increasing the general grant from


the Government towards local government expenditure, the 58 per cent. up to 60 per cent.; subsidising the rate-paying householder by making his rate poundage less than that applying to industrial and commercial property; and improving the rate rebate scheme. All these are carried out now by means of this rate support grant and other orders put before the House.
There are further ways of reducing the householder's rates. The first is by transferring whole items of local government expenditure from the books of the council's treasuries to the books of the Government's Treasury. People have spoken about this for a long time. I must not anticipate today what may be contained in any Bill to deal with local government finance. Another way to reduce the householder's liability would be to allow the local councils to levy other forms of taxation. I shall not mention any particular tax or it would be headlined tomorrow, followed by a question mark, "Local councils' tax" on something or other. Those are ways in which one might reduce the liability of the rate-paying householder.
To return to the subject of next year's rates—the 60 per cent. rate support grant—provided that the authorities exercise restraint on their expenditure we are satisfied that the record level of grant which we are now providing, combined with the high level of domestic reduction, should ensure that the increase in the rates in general can be kept down to a level consistent with increases in the prices and costs which have to be met. We recognise there will be local variations.
May I mention two other items closely connected. We are taking steps to help the domestic ratepayers to pay their rates by increasing the limit of income which applies for the rate rebates. The rate rebate scheme helps those with low incomes to pay their rates. Under a draft order which has just been laid those income limits will be increased by 12½ per cent. in line with the general increase in social security benefits payable since last October. The higher income limits will operate from 1st April 1973—that is to say, applying to income for the previous six months—so that this will bring into account those who are receiving pensions from last October. Without this

order several hundred thousands of people would have been taken out of the rate rebate scheme. By means of this order we are keeping up to the figure of about 800,000 to one million those who are to be entitled to rate rebates.
The £10 bonus payable to pensioners, a subject we have already discussed, will not count as income for rate rebate purposes. My Department has sent a circular letter to all rating authorities drawing their attention to the relevant fact. It might be helpful to mention that since some hon. Members have received letters from constituents on this matter.
Bearing in mind the record high level of grant and the high level of the domestic element which we are now providing, I am satisfied that the rate support grant as a whole is fair and is one which will enable local authorities to play their part in our overall strategy. I commend the order to the House.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. Denis Howell: This is a debate of considerable importance although one would not imagine so from the soporific approach of the Minister at the Dispatch Box.

Mr. Graham Page: I do not speak as fast as that in my sleep. I was trying to get through the debate in time.

Mr. Howell: I got the impression that the Minister was trying to send the rest of us to sleep, not necessarily talking in his own sleep. No doubt he wished to avoid some of the urgent issues to which we should be turning our attention. This is not just the usual discussion which Parliament holds at this time of the year about local government services and rating. This is a debate about the whole of local government finance and rating in the middle of an economic crisis of some magnitude—such magnitude that it has caused the Government to take the extraordinary step of freezing all increases in wages and salaries for the time being.
That is the backcloth to this debate. If there is to be any additional burden imposed on the ratepayer at a time when he is unable to negotiate an increase in wages or salaries, this is obviously a matter of major concern.
This debate is also being held on the day before the Inland Revenue deposits


with every local authority in the land the new valuation lists which will disclose the new rateable value of every factory, office, shop and dwelling place in the country. It might well seem odd, to say the least, that such a debate is being held the day before this vital information is available to the House and the public. In advance of such information we have had an unprecedented public relations build-up by the Government, attempting to assure householders that there is no need for their rates to go up by more than the 5 per cent. expansion of local government services, or thereabouts, which the Government would like to see.
This campaign was brought to a head last week by the Prime Minister speaking at the Guildhall in the presence of a number of us. He said:
The battle against inflation lies at the heart of all our work in Government at the present time. Among the main aims of this policy is the achievement of steadier prices, including steadier rates.
The Prime Minister and the Government have based these exaggerated hopes for steadier rates in many parts of the country on two main factors.
First of all, there is the new rate support grant in which the Government are paying, for the first time, 60 per cent. of the relevant expenditure of £3,130 million. Secondly, the new valuation lists will provide no reason for the general burden of rates to be increased. Indeed, in his speech the Minister has gone out of his way to say, about the valuation, that this is an average of a 2½ per cent. increase. He said that he thought there would be local and regional variations. I will return to this point later. For millions of domestic ratepayers these hopes of rate stability are already proving to be meaningless.
I begin by looking at the effect of Government assistance to the local authorities. The Government justify their claim of 60 per cent. assistance by calculating that the total of all local government expenditure for the year 1973–74 will be £5,216 million, a figure which the right hon. Gentleman gave twice in his speech. That figure is disputed by the representatives of the towns and cities in England and Wales. They believe it to be far too low. They might be right, because it seems that insufficient account has been taken of the cost of expanding

a number of our essential services. I shall mention one or two.
The educational service is one example, and the Minister went out of his way to say that it would not create additional expenditure in the next financial year. The local authorities advise me that they believe the figure for educational expansion is inadequate to take account of the raising of the school-leaving age, the expansion of nursery education and changes in teaching standards and improved curricula. If that is right it would be totally unrealistic in those circumstances for the Government to allow for an improvement factor in education next year of 3 per cent. against 3½ per cent. this year. A reduction of 1/7 in the improvement factor for education is in itself a revealing figure.
There is also the question of highway maintenance. We have had the Marshall Committee Report on highway maintenance which called for a much higher level of expenditure in this sphere. The Government have recognised the force of that demand and commendably have moved in the right direction by announcing a considerable increase in the size of the maintenance programme for trunk roads. If the Government recognise the force of the need for much greater expenditure on trunk roads, it must follow ipso facto that the local authorities, which have many other local roads to maintain, should also be making similar provision. After all, the local authorities have a responsibility for many roads in this country which bear a much greater volume of traffic than many of the trunk roads.
It is amazing in these circumstances, therefore, that the Government have cut back the local authority road maintenance programme by £10 million. The order allows for an increase in road maintenance of 2·8 per cent., and the Association of Municipal Corporations tells me that its advisers believe that there is little hope of keeping to that figure except by allowing for a
considerable deterioration in present standards.
It seems, therefore, that most local authorities, under pressure from road users, will not allow that to happen and that inevitably much more will be spent on road maintenance than the Government are allowing for in the rate support orders.
The Minister then referred to a further cut which the Government insist must be saved through increased efficiency. I am happy that the Minister paid tribute to the co-operation of the local authorities, but he did not tell us that this was yet another issue on which they are putting forward serious resistance. It is just not on for the Government to demand saving of this sort in local government when the national Government are unable to demonstrate in their field of activities that they can make similar savings in efficiency.
This is a recurring theme. I know that both Conservative and Labour Ministers have demanded increased efficiency from local Government. But after a number of years in which deliberate cuts have been made to allow for increased efficiency the point must be reached where the local authorities are entitled to say that there is no room for further maneouvre.
Nor have the Government been generous or realistic about the effect of inflation upon local government. The rate support order now before the House spells out the cost of inflation to local government for the current year. It is the staggering sum of £410 million. The ratepayers must find 42 per cent. of that burden, which is £172 million. Most local authorities, before they start to levy next year's rate, must impose upon their ratepayers a hefty increase to meet the Government's inflation this year. That is a factor which is disturbing many finance committees throughout the country.
Another source of major dispute between the local authorities and the Government comes under the heading of non-relevant expenditure. That is expenditure which does not rank for grant, including such items as payment for concessionary bus fares and rate fund contribution to the housing revenue account. On that item alone there is a difference of £25 million between the assessment of the central and local government negotiators.
I have spoken to a number of experts on local government finance, and I am not surprised to find that I have not met one who believes, on the basis of the figures, that it will be possible for local authorities to get their rate increase down to 5 per cent., which is the figure being

demanded of them by the Government, much less to carry out the expansion of services which we all know is so drastically required in so many parts of the country. I refer to the services of a whole range of activities other than those to which I have already referred, and about which many of my hon. Friends will be talking later.
Before I pass from the general review of these orders I shall quote what the Minister said two years ago on 10th December 1970. I do so because the Minister took great pride in telling us that this is the most generous rate support settlement that there has ever been. He talked about the virtues of revaluation, which he claimed would restore fairness and justice. The House will remember that two years ago the Minister was urging the cutting back of the form of rate relief which the Labour Government were providing for householders. That was an additional 5d. every year. Two years ago he cut that down by half. He said:
It seems to us on this occasion that the effect of the 5d. reduction each year has been to shield the domestic ratepayer from virtually all the increases that have taken place in local authority spending. The Government do not consider it appropriate that the domestic ratepayer should be so insulated from the cost of services."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th December 1970; Vol. 808, c. 797–8.]
A different song was sung from the Dispatch Box tonight. Yet one more Government policy stood on its head. The domestic ratepayer, who was not to be shielded from these chilly winds two years ago, is now to have unprecedented and generous support by the Government. The speech of the Minister two years ago fairly reflected what the Labour Government were trying to do. It was a generous acknowledgement that we were succeeding in that direction. The reason why the Government wanted to depart from that is that they wanted to redress the balance against the domestic ratepayer in favour of the industrial and commercial ratepayer. Two years later the wretched Minister eats his own words and stands the Government's policy on its head.
Now, revaluation. As I have made clear, the Opposition believe that the Government's treatment of local government finance in this year's review will provide crisis enough for most authorities in the next financial year. It is already


clear that the effects of the new valuation on many ratepayers will be catastrophic. I hope that the Minister who replies will spell out what he thinks that the local authorities I shall mention should do in the circumstances with which they will be confronted by the Government's action.

Mr. Arthur Jones: Do I understand from the hon. Gentleman that he is against the proposed 1973 revaluation?

Mr. Howell: I shall spell out in detail exactly what I think about the present revaluation. Figures are already available to one or two of us and will be available to the nation generally tomorrow. The ratepayers of a large number of towns, when they see their new valuations tomorrow and believe that the job will be too great now because it has been postponed in the past, will prefer not to receive the "fairness and justice", to quote the Minister's words, at the hands of the Government, and would rather have further postponements until the Government get the matter right.

Mr. Martin Maddan: The hon. Gentleman talked about those who would perhaps suffer and would like revaluation to be postponed again. Will he say something about those who will gain, and who perhaps gained five years ago?

Mr. Howell: It frightens me when I think that I have only just announced that I will speak about revaluation. Before I have said one word on the question hon. Members opposite are so anxious about the subject that they interrupt me and ask me to augment my speech before they have even heard it. If they are patient with me I shall return to it. I assure the hon. Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) that there will be nothing soporific about this part of my speech.
The new valuation will have very serious effects for many ratepayers. In some places there has been a major switch of the rate burden from industry and commerce on to the backs of domestic ratepayers, about whom I am most concerned. The Government state that the new valuation proposals will multiply present rateable values by two and a half, and the proposals in the orders are based on that assumption.
If the information I have is accurate it is clear that in several towns industrial valuations will rise by appreciably less than the average while domestic valuations are likely to rise by at least three times existing figures.
Officially we are not supposed to know anything about the new figures until 12 noon tomorrow, but some of us have received information in advance of that time. The Government have certainly received information in advance of that time.
I used the word "soporific" because the Minister skated over what he knows to be the devastating effect of revaluation in many cities and did not come clean with the House.

Mr. Harold Gurden: The hon. Gentleman is saying that he has figures which are not publicly known until tomorrow. Did the Government give him the figures? If not, where did he get them?

Mr. Howell: That is a stupid intervention, becauses not only have I the figures but the hon. Gentleman himself has them. The City Treasurer of Birmingham provided a report for the leader of the Labour group in Birmingham, who sent it to every Birmingham Member, including the hon. Gentleman. Therefore, he knows perfectly well where I got the figures. Incidentally, when Councillor Yapp sent me that report he said that a copy had also been sent to the regional officer of the Department as a matter of courtesy—that is how Birmingham does things—so that the Government should know exactly the information being made available to Birmingham Members.

Mr. Gurden: The hon. Gentleman understands perfectly well what I am saying. He has told me only that he obtained the figures from a colleague in Birmingham. I am asking how the information came into Mr. Yapp's possession so that he was able to forward it to me and the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Howell: If the hon. Gentleman wants to know where the leader of Birmingham City Council got the information from, no doubt he will write and ask him that question.

Mr. Graham Page: There is nothing secret about the matter. The valuation


lists were dealt out to the local authorities as they were ready, so that they could see them as soon as possible. The date by which they must be in the hands of the local authorities is tomorrow. We have not all had the opportunity of looking at every valuation list, but the hon. Gentleman is quite at liberty to look at the one from Birmingham.

Mr. Howell: I am most grateful to the Minister for his intervention. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan) wish to intervene?

Mr. Maddan: I commented that my right hon. Friend had bailed the hon. Gentleman out of his difficulties. I hope that he is grateful.

Mr. Howell: That is not in the least the position. The right hon. Gentleman has bailed out his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden). It is his hon. Friend who should have known where Councillor Yapp got his information. Everyone else in the Birmingham group of Members knows that information.
For the reasons the right hon. Gentleman gave, Birmingham has had the advantage of being able to make a detailed analysis of the position in that city, certainly a more detailed analysis than most other cities have been able to make. As a result of revaluation, without allowing for any increased rate requirements next year, domestic ratepayers in Birmingham will have to pay an extra 14·3 per cent. in rates to produce the same revenue as this year. In other words, the cost of standing still for Birmingham will be 14·3 per cent. to the domestic ratepayer, and that is after taking into account the total of the Government's domestic relief allowances. It is a most serious situation. That in itself will be a major blow to Birmingham and to many other cities and urban areas, as I think the right hon. Gentleman recognised in part of his speech.
Birmingham is not alone. Similar fears have reached me from other parts of the country. Wolverhampton expects the shift of the burden on to the householders to be about 12 per cent. following revaluation. Norwich believes that smaller houses and old people's bungalows in particular will be hard hit there.

I hear that Leeds and Sheffield await tomorrow's news with great trepidation. Manchester is another city where householders will lose out, as the Minister mentioned at his Press conference today. I did not have Southampton on my list, but I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for telling the House that it should be added to the list of towns that will be hit by revaluation.

Mr. Graham Page: I said that Portsmouth would and Southampton would not. Portsmouth loses and Southampton gains.

Mr. Howell: I am sorry; I thought that the right hon. Gentleman said it the other way round.
The urban areas around Bristol—the commuter belt—I am told, are likely to be affected dramatically both in north Somerset and south Gloucestershire. Derby expects its householders to be 5 per cent. worse off as the result of revaluation without taking account of any other factors. So one could go on.

Mr. Maddan: The hon. Gentleman has given us a fairly exhaustive list. From his researches, would he advise us that most of the domestic ratepayers in the rest of the country will gain?

Mr. Howell: No, very few parts of the rest of the country will gain. What most ratepayers fear is that when their rateable values have been put up to by two-and-a-half times, which is the average, nevertheless, by some sort of Parkinson's Law, domestic rates will continue to rise whatever happens to rateable values.
Tomorrow, tens of thousands of ratepayers will be in for one of the biggest shocks of their lives when they realise the shift in the emphasis of the rate burden from industry to domestic ratepayers, and when they realise that they have been gazumped by the Government in respect of the rate burden.
Things cannot stand still. It is impossible for local authorities to believe that the Government have got inflation under control. I do not think that the Government themselves believe that, whatever claims they may make for their policy. In the local government service in the last three years inflation has been about 14 per cent. Even if the needs element in the Government grant is raised


to reduce the general effect on local government to 10 per cent., it is not the Government's policy to meet the whole of that because the Government grant-aid local government finance is on the basis of 60 per cent. Apart from the switch of emphasis, local authorities next year will have to find 40 per cent. of the cost of inflation. If these figures are true—they are likely to be an under-estimate—it will mean for Birmingham an increase of 27·6 per cent. to the domestic ratepayer to keep present services intact and to allow for inflation. That is a phenomenal situation for any local authority to face. It is the height of deception for the Government to say that the Birmingham rate rise can be kept down to 5 per cent. or anywhere near that figure.
In his speech at the Guildhall last Wednesday the Prime Minister made another interesting comment:
It would be totally unreasonable for revaluation to be used as an excuse for increasing the total demands made upon the ratepayer. This would be extremely damaging to our efforts to restrain inflation.
Birmingham, Wolverhampton, Manchester and the rest now know that for them the Prime Minister's words are meaningless. Either the Government did not appreciate the effect of revaluation in those towns or the people in the conurbations have been grossly misled. Or perhaps the Prime Minister was grossly misled in the brief that was offered to him for his Guildhall speech.
What is the position in Birmingham and other cities? Birmingham is probably the most dramatic case. The choice before it is real and ludicrously impossible to operate. I hope that the Minister will concentrate on this matter, because we want Government advice about what we in Birmingham should do about this problem.
It seems that there are two alternatives in Birmingham. The first is to ignore the Government's determined policy to keep rate rises down to 5 per cent., which cannot be done on any calculation. The second is to put a large number of employees out of work. I am informed that, in terms of the effects of revaluation and inflation, if Birmingham intends to keep within the Government's limit of a 5 per cent. increase for ratepayers it will mean the sacking of between 2,500 and 3,000 people. This

will involve teachers, police officers, administrators, social workers and the like. We have only to consider the matter for a few moments to realise that such a situation is unthinkable. Clearly Birmingham cannot set about systematically making redundant that number of essential workers.
If Birmingham cannot get rid of that large number of workers to meet the Government's limit of a 5 per cent. increase, the other alternative becomes a tremendously stark piece of reality. Birmingham ratepayers face an increase of over 27 per cent. during phase two of the prices and incomes policy, as I am reminded by my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland).
Birmingham and other authorities would like to hear the Minister tonight say which of these options he expects them to adopt. Does he wish to see a tremendous and dramatic increase in the rates to keep services intact and to keep people at work, or does he expect a wholesale laying-off of the magnitude I have described to the House? It is clear beyond doubt that the Government must involve themselves in trying to produce a solution to this problem—a problem which has arisen as a result of revaluation and Government action.
There is one practical solution available to the Government. This solution was provided in 1963 when we last had a revaluation. I quote from Command Paper 1663 issued in 1963. Under the title "Revaluation for Rates in 1963", the document states in paragraph 15:
It is within the Minister's powers to make an Order derating houses solely in those few areas where the increase in the householder's share is greatest".
If that provision could have been made in 1963, as it was, it can be made in 1972.
This has been a day on which the Opposition have facilitated the Government's essential legislation. Therefore, if the Government wish now to re-enact the 1963 provision properly to cushion the ratepayers of those towns which have been unfairly hit by revaluation, in the midst of a wage freeze, the Opposition will be glad to give them every co-operation to pass that essential legislation through the House.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): I


should like to be sure what the hon. Gentleman is saying Is he saying that revaluation is unfair and therefore that action should be taken again to postpone it?

Mr. Howell: I am not saying that at all. I am saying that it has produced an impossible and unacceptable situation in Birmingham and many other places and that in the middle of a wage freeze it is placing an extra burden on householders in Birmingham and other cities. I am saying that, faced with that situation and the Government's own wage freeze, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Government side should take these extra powers now by order, as was the case in 1963, to derate those householders and so save them from the effect of such a monstrous situation.
After all, it was not my party which in 1963 produced that solution. It was a previous Conservative Government. In the event it was never used. But of course we were not then in the middle of a wage freeze with all the damaging social consequences which must follow for the Government if additional burdens of this kind are piled on the ratepayer.
I am making an offer on behalf of the Opposition which I think is reasonably generous. It is that in the middle of this wage freeze and even before phase two is made known, the domestic ratepayer in the areas affected should be cushioned from such a savage result as seems likely to be the case in Birmingham. I hope that the Minister and his colleagues will consider it.
The difficulty that we are in is that the Minister held a Press conference today. I hope it is not true but I understand that he has specifically ruled out any hope of Government intervention in this matter along the lines of the 1963 solution. I am told by a colleague who was at the Press conference that when the Minister was asked about the 1963 revaluation he said that he did not intend to make use of that sort of machinery. I hope he will think again. He must be made to think again, otherwise the effect on the Government's own economic policies will produce wholesale chaos in cities like Birmingham—

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Incredible.

Mr. Howell: The Under-Secretary says "Incredible". I want to face him with the situation. What does he think the workers in the factories and offices of Birmingham will do if they have a 27 per cent. increase forced upon them for payment of their rates in a situation where the Government are telling them not only that they cannot have any wage increase but that they cannot even negotiate future wage increases? If ever there was a prescription for industrial anarchy, that is it.
Ministers have to defend this action tonight. But they cannot discuss the rating situation in isolation from the general economic situation facing the country and from the economic constraints they seek to impose upon the work force, especially in the cities that I have been discussing.
The Government's statutory wage freeze is a significant factor in the situation which Ministers in the Department do not appear to have taken fully into account. I am certain that this is not only a prescription for anarchy. It will play into the hands of those elements which wish to see industrial unrest. It is the ordinary people who have no wish to be locked in combat with the Government on this or any other matter. That is the position of the vast majority of trade unionists and decent, law-abiding citizens. They do not want confrontation. Unless the Government change their attitude on this matter they will create confrontation and industrial unrest in places where we ought to be striving most for a peaceful solution.
The alternatives are wholesale sacking and the undermining of essential services. That will be resisted with equal outrage. Either way, neither the Government nor the nation can afford to such a confrontation. It must be headed off. If the Government persist in their present course they will become completely discredited in major industrial strongholds such as Birmingham. Wolverhampton and Manchester.
I understand that at his Press conference this afternoon, and again in his speech, the Minister said that the reason for the plight in Birmingham was that wages were too high. [Interruption.] That is the logic of what the Govern-are saying. I am told by someone who


was present that that was what the Minister said. If he did not, I am willing to be corrected.

Mr. Graham Page: I certainly did not say that. I said that if wages are higher and people were prepared to pay higher rents in Birmingham than in Bradford, where wages are at a low level, they must expect the revaluation in Birmingham to be higher than in Bradford.

Mr. Howell: We shall come on to rents affecting this matter. The Minister has confirmed that the revaluation in Birmingham arises directly from the fact that, to use his phrase, wages are higher than the national average. I find that a most revealing statement. It explains partly why the Government are refusing to intervene. They feel that in many of our industrial cities wages are too high and that rates can be allowed to go up. I presume they believe that that is one way to deal with the situation.
The situation in Birmingham and elsewhere has not been brought about by the size of the wage packet. It results from the Government's complete failure to control land and house prices.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: What has that to do with it?

Mr. Howell: What has that to do with it! The Minister would not make a remark like that if he had been in hisposition more than five minutes. He must know that housing valuations are decided by the value of houses. The Inland Revenue has to fix the rateable valuation of a house according to its letting value. Therefore, if houses and land prices are going up, it automatically follows—that is why we are in this pickle—that the Inland Revenue must reflect that fact in the rateable values that it fixes. Ratepayers are on the receiving end of the calamitous failure of the Government's policy in this respect.
The right hon. Gentleman said in an intervention that higher wages meant that people were prepared to pay higher rents. What a ludicrous statement by a Minister at the Dispatch Box in the light of the Government's insistence on Birmingham putting up rents when that city has said that there is no reason to put them up. If the forcing up of rents is a factor in these distorted valuations, that is added

blame which must be attached to the Government.
It is not only Government policy which is being discredited, but the rating system itself. This has been proved to be obsolete to thousands of ratepayers. The distortions that we shall see in many cities as a result of revaluation will simply finish it off. Therefore, we in the Labour Party must press on urgently with our inquiry into the whole future of local government finance and finding an alternative to the rating system.
One other matter that was brought to my attention today in Birmingham—it should be mentioned in this debate—is the administrative chaos that is bound to follow in the rating Department as a result of this revaluation. In 1963, at the last revaluation, there were 40,000 appeals in Birmingham alone against the new assessments. The view of the appropriate officials in Birmingham is that on the basis of the proposals to be published tomorrow they expect to receive no fewer than 100,000 appeals. It will be impossible to process them. I gather that 10 years after the last revaluation some appeals are still outstanding in the city. That will give the House an idea of the magnitude of the load that we are about to place on the Birmingham rating system, and it will apply elsewhere to a greater or less degree.
The House has no alternative, it seems to me, but to support the two orders, for the obvious reason that if we vote against these miserable measures we shall cut off the supply of the finance—inadequate as we believe it to be—to local government. Obviously, therefore, we shall not vote against the orders, but very soon after the House reassembles we shall return to these vital and urgent matters, especially as by then hon. Members will have had an opportunity to study the new valuation lists which come into effect tomorrow.
The situation cannot be left as it is. If the Government's policy is to retain any credibility, either economically or in terms of local government finance, they must use the Christmas Recess to find some way of ensuring that the demands on all ratepayers—particularly in our large industrial conurbations—meet their high hopes of retaining the standard of local government services to keeping the rate


burden within the limit of an extra 5 per cent. We are entitled tonight to ask the Minister to spell out to Birmingham and to other local authorities exactly how he believes it is possible to do that in the circumstances that I have outlined.

9.23 p.m.

Mr. J. R. Kinsey: I propose to follow what was said by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell). I disagree with his figures of sackings of Birmingham council employees. If economies are to be carried out in Birmingham when the Socialists are in charge they immediately try to frighten us with the sort of figures that would be incurred in making such economies. They do not look round for other means of drawing in the purse strings in order to obtain what everybody wants; namely, good rate expenditure.
I shall work on the same figures as those used by the hon. Gentleman. They are in a letter sent to us by the Leader of the Birmingham City Council on 8th December. They give cause for considerable concern, and here I speak for my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight), Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden), Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Sydney Chapman) and Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Coombs). We are all concerned about the figures.
I was heartened by one point made by my right hon. Friend. I think that he is looking closely into the matter, and he has hinted that there may be a way in which he will move to help us. We recognise that the order provides generous increases in help for the domestic ratepayer section of the rate element, and I applaud the Government on their intention to back their actions on the freeze policy by keeping the rate increase within a 5 per cent. limit, but they must ensure that that intention is carried out.
This help comes at the same time as the further proposal for rating valuation in the quinquennial review. The proposals, as detailed by the hon. Member, show a great distortion affecting Birmingham. He referred to Derby and Sheffield, which are also adversely affected. Although the hon. Member did not appear to realise it, we on this side know that the valuation lists are drawn up by an independent body, not the Gov-

ernment or the councils, so neither party can influence them. When they are carried out generally, they are dynamite and very unwelcome. No one has ever thrown his hat in the air about the quinquennial review.
The last revaluation, which should have been done in 1968 by the Labour Government, was cancelled because it was unpopular. That decision carried the firm smack of a runaway Government. As a result, now it is even worse. These are the things which must be taken into account when we review the position this time.
It is amazing that, whatever Government are in and however it affects everybody else, this system always affects Birmingham adversely. Birmingham has been penalised not only on rate grants but, for instance, in the 1956 review. That cost us £1,700,000. Liverpool got £1 million more. Good luck to Liverpool, but very bad for Birmingham.
In 1969, when there was another bit of shifting around of the Government grant by the Labour Government, the success of Birmingham's housing policy in overspill—it was the best in the world—affected the needs element and cost us another £1 million reduction. In industrial policy, we had IDC's that affected our earning capacity and produced a worse position. The same is true of the nationalisation of gas and electricity undertakings, without compensation, and the regionalisation of the bus services, also without compensation. We view with fear the wider reorganisation of local government which will take away land that we own outside the city boundary.
I wonder what Ministers have against Birmingham. Every time that something like this is done, we are given a bashing. All Governments treat all sections of life the same way. One does not dare to be successful. If one is foolish, someone steps in and helps. If a city is not prosperous, it does not have to foot the bill: the Government helps. As it applies to individuals, so it seems to apply to cities.
Now we see how the revaluation and the support grant combine to give the figures for Birmingham. The Birmingham Evening Mail on Thursday 14th December carried headlines warning of


a 25 per cent. city rate rise. This cannot be the intention of the Government, but let us examine the figures. I take into account the fact that the figures come from a party which opposes the Government and the fact that there is always some profligate spending by such a party. Free contraception on the rates is one item that has come up in advance of anything else, and other items have to be taken into account.
The figures provided by the City Treasurer, which my right hon. Friend has in his Department, make grim reading for the Birmingham citizens. Over the country as a whole, there is a 2·56 per cent. increase in rateable values. The domestic share is about 1·8 per cent. of that increase. But in Birmingham the position is different. I quote from the letter sent to us:
Average figures as usual conceal substantial variations and I would like to draw your attention to the drastically unfavourable situation which is likely to result in Birmingham and in fact in any area with a substantial proportion of industrial and commercial property where domestic property sustains a much higher proportionate rate of increase.
The present rate in Birmingham is 105p in the £, less 10·5p, which equals at the present time a 94·5p domestic rate.
It is anticipated that the total rateable value for the city will increase 2½ times giving an equivalent rate of 105p divided by 2½, equalling 42p.
That is less 6p, so we are down to a 36p domestic rate.
Taking the separate rates of increase for different groups of property as at present envisaged, the equivalents on the old basis would be as follows: Industry would pay 105p, a decrease of 8·4p; commerce would pay 96·6p, a decrease of 8·4p;"miscellaneous" is down by 16·8p; but the domestic element rises by 13·5p, and this is where the anomaly comes in and this is the area at which we ask the Minister to look, because this is without allowing any increase in expenditure in the coming year to meet the inflationary expenditure of the city and its growing needs. The expenditure increase is likely to be about 12½ per cent., which will probably be reduced to 10 per cent. by the new rate support element.
When we read the 10p table which has been sent to us we see that once again there is a complete anomaly, because in regard to industry and a 10 per cent.

increase, we find that industry rises by 1·3p and commerce by 1·3p, and miscellaneous is down 8p. But the domestic rate value goes up by 26·1p, and even if we were to be able to keep the increased rate required down to 5 per cent. as requested by the Government—and that is an impossible situation—this would still mean a domestic rate increase of 21p.
Those are the figures sent to us by Birmingham, and at this time I see no basis for challenging them. However, if the Opposition can help in that direction we shall be grateful. Obviously, we have this distortion in Birmingham because, as we have said, other authorities pay less, and Leeds and Liverpool are two of those.
We see why the Department of the Environment, granting this increase in the domestic relief, related it to an overall rateable value increase in the country of 2·6 per cent. But Birmingham's increase is 3 per cent. It is obvious that other local authorities are to pay less, because the average is 2·56 per cent., and they gain doubly not only by having a lower rateable value but by having it then increased by this further amount. In some cases they get relief which the Birmingham City Treasurer suggests they do not require, although I would not expect ratepayers in those areas to agree with him. Nevertheless, Birmingham is asking that help is distributed fairly throughout, and I support Birmingham in that. Conservative hon. Members will wholeheartedly support that suggestion. It is the Government's declared intention to do just that. Surely if we intend to alleviate the swing from non-domestic to domestic properties we should relate relief to the areas where such relief is required. This is what we are asking the Government to direct their attention to.
The situation in Birmingham will be even worse. The valuation of some of the properties there will go up more than that of other properties in order to get the average of 3 per cent. This will mean a particularly heavy increase for some of the people in the city to bear. People will rightly ask "Why should we help the Government to tackle inflation under these conditions?" I have no need to emphasise Birmingham's industrial position and its importance in the context of the industrial wage rate in the country.
There is a way out, and it has been done before. The Minister can ensure that the grant aid is directed to the areas where it is most needed. The precedents were in 1956 and in 1963. In 1956 the revaluation showed a 20 per cent. swing against commercial properties. The Government acted and had that redressed, and rightly so. In 1963 provision was made for a revaluation order. I do not think it was ever used, but the provision was made. We now request my right hon. Friend to do exactly the same thing again. I think he hinted at it at one stage at the Dispatch Box, and I shall carefully read the report of his speech to see whether he does intend to do this.
I echo the points that my right hon. Friend made. I am very pleased that he made them. We need this rating system reform very badly indeed. The present system is so anomalous. Those on slender means bear burdens equal to those carried by their better-off neighbours, and that cannot be right. The system is silly enough as to class central heating as a taxable item and to exempt from taxation all other forms of heating. Such a system definitely needs overhauling. If the Minister can reform it successfully I am sure we shall all be grateful to him. In Birmingham we shall certainly be grateful to him, even though he cannot reform the whole scheme, if he amends the scheme to ensure that the domestic ratepayer in Birmingham is helped and does not have to nay this swingeing increase of 25 per cent.

9.38 p.m.

Mr. R. B. Cant: It was inevitable, I suppose, that this debate should spill over somewhat into the possible future debate on local government finance. I must say that I am beginning to have certain misgivings about the rating system for which for a long time I have had a great deal of affection.
When I went to my adopted city of Stoke-on-Trent in 1945 I soon realised that the previous Member of Parliament, Mr. Andrew MacLaren, whose name some hon. Members may remember and who was a great apostle of the taxation of land values—the idea of a single tax—influenced the people of Stoke-on-Trent greatly. I regarded this as a rather esoteric rating philosophy, but as one

has moved into this period in which property and land values have gone absolutely crazy, and one hears hon. Members on this side of the House talking about the nationalisation of land, I am increasingly coming round to regarding the taxation of land values as a way out of this situation. However, we must not be led on to that subject.
We have all come richly endowed with our city treasurers' briefs. I have mine on the seat beside me. I think Stoke-on-Trent is another of those cities which are coming off very badly as a result of revaluation.
I know that the Minister for Local Government and Development, who opened this debate, spoke of "little local variations". That is likely to turn out to be equally the sort of euphemism which a former leader of the Conservative Party, I think Mr. Macmillan, spoke of when he mentioned "little local difficulties". Those little local difficulties rapidly assumed the tremendous proportions of some of the little issues mentioned by the Minister.
It is all very well to say that rateable values will increase two and a half times on the average, taking global figures into account. In Stoke-on-Trent they are going up 2·68 times. That may not seem a very great deal but when one speaks of millions of pounds of rateable value it can be an extremely important matter. That little local variation will adversely affect the fortunes of Stoke-on-Trent.
The next point equally affects Stoke-on-Trent—namely, the effect of increased rateable values on domestic establishments vis-à-vis commerce and industry Here Stoke-on-Trent is affected because domestic ratepayers currently provide about 47·5 per cent. of the rateable value but under revaluation this proportion will increase to 52·5 per cent. That is a massive change.
On the Government benches I see honourable men. I do not deny that. The Minister is a very persuasive man. His judgments are well balanced. In listening to him I do not go to sleep. Unfortunately my regard for him increases. I tap myself on the back of my hand in case my political affiliations stray too far.
What are the Government bent upon? Is it self-destruction? Perhaps. One


should not try to save them from that. Perhaps it would be a happy release for the many hon. Members opposite who cannot follow the Prime Minister in all his policies or twists, turns and changes of mind.
Here we have yet another financial burden, another increase in price which will fall upon the people of the country. One can estimate the figure for 1973. Let us forget the terrible year 1972. Let us think of the value added tax, the common agricultural policy, rent increases, the growing devaluation of the £, the increase in the interest rate, and now the increase in rates. The latest and most authoritative assessment of what this will amount to in total is a 9 per cent. increase in prices during 1973, not counting the wage increases which are supposed to be responsible for the whole of the present inflationary situation.
It is very difficult to find a way out of this mess especially when one thinks of the increase in the interest rate that has occurred to date. Increases in future rates of interest are confidently predicted by the Economist and the Financial Times as the Government once again change their mind and begin to follow the philosophy advocated by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) and operate a money supply squeeze.
How can we find a way out of this situation? Various suggestions have been made. The White Papers of 1963 have been referred to and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Kinsey) referred to the action taken by the Government in 1956. My city treasurer has another suggestion. In his opinion, and I hope I get him right because I am not very good at these valuation matters, what has happened in previous revaluations is quite simply that the Government have made an alteration in the deduction which produces net rateable value from gross rateable value to keep the effect of the percentages the same as we move to a higher band of rateable value.
Let me give an illustration from Stoke-on-Trent. At the moment, and this may surprise the Minister, the average net rateable value of a house in Stoke-on-Trent is only £45. We are not a poor city. I must say that in case this is reported in the local Press. But we are

not a wealthy city like Birmingham, Manchester and other such places. We are just a humble satellite that seems to revolve around those great conurbations. As the Government are arranging this revaluation, the deduction percentage falls significantly.
Taking the average rateable value in Stoke of £45, which is £74 gross, the deduction percentage is 39 per cent. But under the new dispensation the new gross rateable value will be £224 and the deduction percentage will be only 26 per cent., with the new rateable value being £165. In previous revaluations that percentage has been retained. Without any doubt, although the position looks generous—these global figures can be thrown around—the fact is that the 6p increase in the domestic element of the rate support grant does not give us more than about £500,000 as a contribution towards the rates. We do not think this is by any means enough. It will not cover the inflationary pressure which is likely to develop next year and it will make very little contribution to any growth in services which the Government would like us to carry on.
Despite the fact that Stoke-on-Trent is developing quite rapidly in terms of improving its infrastructure, its roads and vital sewers, and above all in terms of magnificent, almost gradiose, land reclamation schemes, we have still lost population. Unfortunately we are losing the younger population, the married couples with children. Those who have studied local government finance even in the most abbreviated and simple form will appreciate that children are a significant factor in the determination of the rates for grant.
Our plea is for the Government to have another look at the contribution they will make to the rates of Stoke-on-Trent. As long as we get the money, we do not mind what formula they use. We do not want to hold back the development of services in any way. We do not want to impose an intolerable burden on the citizens of Stoke-on-Trent in terms of an increase in rates which has arisen almost entirely because the burden has been lifted from industry and placed on the backs of the domestic ratepayers.
Having recently been in the Land Compensation Bill Committee I know that the


Government team on the Front Bench is in a generous mood. It is responsive to suggestions from the Opposition. I hope that this grant tradition will be carried on in the season of good will.

9.51 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Jones: The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant) was dealing essentially with constituency points, although I was interested in his reference to the different between gross and net value for rating purposes. He seemed to imply that the Government had some hand in the percentage reduction. I cannot think that he is right. It is essentially a matter for the valuation officer, and, as I understand it, the reduction from gross to net is dependent upon the cost of the maintenance of property, management and so on. Therefore, I do not believe that this is a matter in which the Government should be involved.
The Rate Support Grant Order embodied a new conception for most of us when it was introduced in the Local Government Act 1966, and tonight is the last occasion on which, as I understand it, we shall be discussing a rate support grant order as such. Both sides of the House will agree that it has served a very useful purpose as a method of supporting local government expenditure. It is sensitive to local circumstances and to the standard of services, combining the needs element, the resources element and the domestic element and, in addition, a number of specific grants related mainly to the police and administration of the law. Those of us who try to understand the system as best we can have recognised the incredible computations involved. I offer my congratulations to those who were responsible for its conception, but those who were responsible for operating it are perhaps to be congratulated more heartily because it has been a difficult grant aid to administer.
I have been at most of the debates we have had on rate support grants, and I have noticed from year to year how both front benches have stuck closely to their briefs when introducing the complications of the percentages this way and that. When they reached the political aspect they were able to put their brief to one

side, but not until they had dealt closely and carefully with the facts and figures. I do not think I am being unjust to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) if I recall that when as a Minister he replied on behalf of the Government of the day he confessed that he did not understand the point. He is to be excused for that admission, because I am sure that the same can be said of most people who have had to deal with the "nuts and bolts" of the system.
Tonight, therefore, we say farewell with mixed feelings, perhaps with feelings mainly of relief. My right hon. Friend the Minister made no revelation about the reform of local government finance, but I am sure he will agree with all hon. Members that we look and hope for a simpler system. Local government revenues and the whole rating system depend upon proper administration, including a periodic revaluation. The last was in 1963.
I recall the occasion at the Guildhall last week, as does the hon. Member for Small Heath, when the Prime Minister was referring to the effects of revaluation and the rate precept. On that occasion I happened to be sitting opposite the right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), who, when the Prime Minister remarked that the revaluation of 1969 was not proceeded with, said "And very wise, too." Whether it was wisdom or whether the motive were different from that, I leave hon. Members to judge for themselves.
I also remember the right hon. Member for Coventry, East saying in this House that he proposed to do away with the rating system. Anybody who could say that and at the same time try to administer local government is flying in the face of the administrative problems that doing away with the concept of rates implies. I pressed the hon. Member for Small Heath about revaluation, and I am disappointed that we did not have the benefit of his views on the matter. The hon. Gentleman nodded his assent when I quoted his right hon. Friend as saying that it was wise not to have a revaluation in 1968. But to say that prejudices the whole conception of local government finance. He may well have a case for much of what he said tonight, but a lot of that stems from the


fact that the revaluation of 1968 was not effected. Consequently, a substantial amount of the blame rests upon him and his colleagues.
I am sorry that we did not have an opportunity to hear the hon. Gentleman's views. I will give way now if he cares to think that he has missed the opportunity. I see that he will not rise to that. However, I congratulate the Government in going ahead with the rating revaluation, which is five years overdue. It is a decade since rating values were updated, and we cannot have the sort of disruptive speech which we had from the hon. Member for Small Heath if we want to achieve a balanced judgment and a revitalisation of local government finance.
My right hon. Friend said that he hoped to bring down the rate demand. I know that he has done all that lies within his power, but the evidence is that local authorities will find it difficult to stay within the Government yardstick in that respect. My right hon. Friend went further when he said that he wants to get the rates down. That must mean a reduction of services in some way, or he was saying that in the context of the reform of local government. If rates are to be less significant in local government finance in the future, there is justification for saying that it will be possible to get the rates down. However, the tremendously varied and wide services for which local government is responsible, and which are demanded both by local communities and central Government, are the subject of a continuing demand for

extension in quantity and, very properly, quality.
The dilemma for those who have the responsibility of conducting local government finance is the continuing demand upon them by central Government for an extension of their services. They face the tremendous dilemma of being demanded to extend, yet the advocacy of central Government calls for a reduction of extension or a reduction of the expansion of the extension. My right hon. Friend also referred to bringing business efficiency into local government affairs. I have never seen that as a possibility. Local government services are administered not on a cost/effective basis but upon a cost/benefit analysis basis. Therefore, I look for greater and increased improvement in management in local government. The Baines Report has pointed the way in many respects. The hon. Member for Small Heath said that there is not that much leeway for economies. I share that view, although there is much to be said for management effectiveness and the streamlining of administrative procedures.
I welcome the increase of about 2 per cent. in the rate support grant arrangements for next year. Many people in local government circles believed that the increase of resources found by central Government would mean reduced local responsibility. I have never held that view. There will still be local responsibility and accountability of local communities. The debate shows that we all look forward to the reform of local government finance.

10.1 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Marks: As I was not present at the Guildhall dinner I will not follow the hon. Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) in an attempt to retail the conversation pieces that occurred at the tables.
I am interested in what has been said about the absorbing of people from industry. The Conservative manifesto for the last election stated:
Some present government activities could be better organised using competent managers recruited from industry and commerce. Plans to achieve this new style of government are well advanced. It will be more efficient and less costly. Detailed policies set out in this document will also lead to reductions in the weight of government spending.
We have listened to hon. Members opposite congratulating the Government on increasing the weight of Government spending, just as they congratulated the Government two years ago on halving the increase in the domestic subsidy. Some hon. Members opposite will follow almost anything.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Kinsey) raised the question of alternative economies. The only one he got round to was the free contraceptives on the rates being cut out. I gather than the other place will be asking us to look after that from a Government angle. I wonder when hon. Members on the Government side will tell local councils what they must cut if they are to be held to an increase of only 5 per cent.
We have inadequate information with which to debate this huge amount of £3,000 million, one of the biggest items of spending the Government must make. There should be a comprehensive report with the order, not a 12-page report from the Secretary of State with a few lines on various items. There is no attempt to quantify individual items in the various categories or to correlate items with previous forecasts of public expenditure. There is a great deal of information about public expenditure for 1976 but not so much about public expenditure for 1973.
We debate the order just before Christmas, almost as an afterthought to the

debate on the motion that the House should adjourn tomorrow for the Christmas Recess. Parliament should take this debate and the whole subject much more seriously. We debate it, strangely enough on the day before local treasurers are to be told what the revaluations will be and a month before they are given the analysis of what they mean in terms of the proportion of rates from industry, commerce and so on. We are not dealing only with cities of the size of Birmingham and Manchester, with their computerised methods, but with smaller boroughs and districts. The figures are based on averages, and hidden in the averages are acute financial problems, especially for the large cities, but also for the older industrial towns and those places, usually the same, with acute social problems.
Negotiations between the Government and the local authority associations are carried out with a secrecy that must be the envy of the Defence Department. There is no public discussion and little public awareness of the issues. This is not the open government we were promised. Days are allotted to debate in the House on the Army, the Navy and the Royal Air Force. Why is not similar time allotted to education and particular branches of it, to roads, to personal social services or to the police services? The provision of time to debate defence matters is written into our system. It is time it was written in for the other services.
We are told that the total revenue forecast for the purpose of the order is £5,216 million. That was not a figure agreed by the local authorities; theirs was higher. We are told that the forecast for education is £2,622 million. There are 10 lines of print on education in the report of the Secretary of State. There is only one on the urban programme, which is a vital part of the debate.
On education, the report says:
The expenditure envisaged in education allows for the expected increase in the number of school pupils occasioned mainly by secondary pupils continuing in school…and for the increased numbers of teachers expected to be employed in the schools.
But what is the estimated increase for the raising of the school leaving age? The local authorities that will have the largest


increase in spending because of the raising of the school leaving age will be those where voluntary staying on has been at its lowest. They include the industrial towns of the North of England. Will they receive sufficient help?
The basic grant payment under Section 2 of the Act is based on population, with an additional sum based on the number of persons under 15 years of age. Why 15? Has it not yet percolated through that the school leaving age has been raised to 16 and that in the year in question all children will be staying at school until they are 16? I know that the 1966 Act states the age as 15, but should not that have been amended along with the other provisions for raising the school leaving age?

(d) The supplementary payment under paragraph 5



(i) As the number of education units per 1,000 of the population to be exceeded as a condition of payment—
200;


(ii) As the sum to be multiplied by the excess and by the population to determine the amount of the payment—
£0·152;

There may be authorities which do not have 20 per cent. of their population in school. Will the Minister tell us which authorities will not qualify for that supplementary payment? Could it be some of the Lancashire towns, or Stoke-on-Trent, which has lost its younger population? I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant) meant the younger population between 20 and 30 who are often the parents of young children. In any case, that supplementary payment is very small. The sum to be multiplied under that paragraph is 15p, but under the paragraph dealing with the under-15s it is £1·89, and there is a substantial difference.

The Secretary of State's report continues:
The forecasts allow for the continuing high demand for further education, including a rapid growth of advanced work in polytechnics.
What increase was allowed? If the polytechnic in my area is to do the additional work required of it by the Government, its estimate next year will have to be increased by 20 to 25 per cent. more than this year. Is that the norm? Is that the figure on which the Government has been working. If it is not, what is the figure?

Parents of children in the 15 to 16 age group now staying on compulsorily have extra commitments as a result, and so have the local authorities. It seems to be Government policy to raise the school leaving age, with which I wholeheartedly agree, but not to make adequate provision outside the classroom. For example, the Secretary of State for Social Services refuses to exempt these young people from prescription charges.

The age of 15 is retained for grant purposes. Why? Surely the 1966 Act used 15 as the basis because the school leaving age was 15. It should now be 16. I appreciate that to some extent the under-16s will be covered by the supplementary payment under paragraph 5, of which the order says:

Still on education, the report goes on to say:
Provision is made for significant improvement in the level of non-teaching costs per pupil in primary, secondary and special schools and in further education establishments.

What are the improvements, and how much are local authorities expected to spend?

The recent White Paper "Education: A Framework for Expansion" said:
Expenditure per head on books, while varying considerably among authorities, has on average been below what is recommended by the Association of Education Committees as necessary to achieve a good standard of provision. The Government believe that local education authorities will generally recognise the importance of an adequate supply of books in schools and hope that, where this is necessary, they will aim at improving standards.
The Minister has reminded us that the White Paper and all the blurb we have had about nursery schools and so on will not apply to this year or next year but may apply after that. What figure has been used for non-teaching spending, particularly on books and equipment? Do the Government expect all local authorities to come up to the standards asked for by the Association of Education Committees, with the aid of this grant brought up to date to 1972 prices?


The figure can be quickly calculated. I hope that the Minister will answer this question.

I now turn to revaluation. The new lists go to the treasurers tomorrow and the analysis goes to them on 26th January. But they will have a job to get through the necessary work of estimating and deciding on the allocation of rates in the short time available after that. The Prime Minister has already warned local authorities against using revaluation as an excuse for putting up rates. Some local authorities—and I include all the local authorities in my area—will have no choice, because they do not conform to the average fixed for the country as a whole. While the general domestic rateable values were increased two and a half times and industrial values by a little, perhaps two and a quarter, in some towns the gap will be much wider. It is in the industrial cities and towns largely in the North of England that this will happen.

There has been substantial slum clearance during the past few years. The new houses and flats will have a bigger proportional increase in rateable values. In my own area I have heard an increase of two and three quarters suggested as the norm, with some increases higher than that.

Many factories and workshops in our area are not new, and unfortunately there has not been the industrial investment which should have taken place. One problem is that new industry which comes to the area often goes into old buildings such as cotton mills, which have been designed for different purposes. The rateable value in those cases will not increase by anything like as much as two and a half times—indeed I have heard the figure of only two times suggested.

In these areas revaluation will mean a heavier load on the domestic ratepayer than the national average. The Prime Minister must not try to pass the buck and blame in advance local authorities such as Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds for what is inevitable. Domestic ratepayers in my area will not only suffer because of the revaluation. They will also suffer because of the closing down of some of the factories. There will be no rates at all coming from those prem-

ises as compared with the situation last year.

There are a number of anomalies which are recognised by everybody in the rate support grant system. The Government's Green Paper on local government finance recognised these anomalies. They are accentuated by the increases which are provided for in the order. I draw the Minister's attention to the research on the rate support grant system which was carried out by Godley and Rhodes in the Department of Applied Economics at Cambridge. It was calculated that some authorities gained and others lost because of these anomalies. The towns that lost were Bootle, whose loss was equivalent to 6p in the £, Middlesbrough, the Hartlepools, Birkenhead. Sunderland, Grimsby, Kingston-upon-Hull, Liverpool, South Shields, Salford, Bradford and Oldham.

Mr. Cant: Does not my hon. Friend agree that it was a restricted sample? There may be other towns such as Stoke-on-Trent which also lose.

Mr. Marks: It was a selective sample. Stoke was not included.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: To what extent was Manchester inside or outside the sample?

Mr. Marks: Manchester was not included in the sample but I imagine that it would be somewhere around the Liverpool figure. The ones that gained the most were Eastbourne, Blackpool, Bournemouth, Bath, Brighton and Oxford. There are two politically significant towns contained in the sample.
I sum up by saying that there are big cities and also industrial boroughs and urban districts, for example, Oldham, Irlam—which already has the loss of its steelworks to cope with—Denton and Audenshaw. Towns large and small will suffer. The pressure on the social services will be tremendous. Manchester has lost out in terms of provision for the disabled because it has had this other burden thrust upon it at this early date. It is not only the disabled but all those who are affected by the social services who will be under heavy pressure. The preventive health services are under pressure. This will apply to cleansing services and the collecting of refuse, which


means not only the emptying of dustbins but all the extra work which will flow from activity in clearance areas.
Furthermore the police will have to cope with an influx from other towns and their problems will be quite severe. Then there are problems affecting the roads, and there will be urgent need for more parks and recreational space. These are problems which particularly face these areas and the surrounding towns even more than they affect the country as a whole.
These problems cannot be measured by a mere counting of heads. They go much deeper. There is more to unemployment than simply paying out unemployment benefits. It brings in its wake a whole series of social problems with which a local authority must deal.
Revaluation means a much heavier burden on the domestic ratepayers of local authorities than the new grants allow for. It means a heavier burden than that on towns which have a lot of highly-rated dwellings, for instance. The anomalies in the rate support grant system tell against them. They have a bigger proportion of increase in the number of 15 to 16-year-olds in school, and the grants do not take full account of that. Because of inflation this year and last year they have to find a great deal of money next year for the higher costs of this year, and the grants do not cover all of that. The necessary spending above the estimates for the country as a whole for this year may be £365 million, of which the councils will have to find about£150 million, and that out of next year's rates.
This rate support grant order is not the glorious handout that Government publicity and the Press have made it out to be. It has not faced the real problems of people living in the cities. These are matters that the Government have to face after this debate. I see some danger that the Government may view them as a political opportunity to try to discredit those towns and their councillors. The Prime Minister's speech last week was an example and it was not honest politics.
I urge the Government to reconsider the special problems of the conurbations and to see whether more cannot be done before these rates come into force.

10.22 p.m.

Mr. Martin Maddan: We are debating this order in what might be described as an interregnum with the Bill concerning local government finance to be brought before us and local government reorganisation to take effect in 1974. Therefore we must recognise that any matters that we discuss tonight are of a temporary nature and that we cannot seek through this order to put right all the wrongs in local government finance. This is not the opportunity for us to do that.
I thought that the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) made a thoughtful and constructive contribution in the way he always does in these debates. I shall deal later with one or two of the points he mentioned. But it will be better if I go through what I wish to say in the order in which I intended originally to say it.
I begin by pointing out that we have to see rates as part of total taxation. For those who pay them they are not an isolated impost. We pay income tax, purchase tax—we shall be paying VAT—SET, petrol tax and all sorts of other taxes to sustain public services and public order. It is worth saying that the total burden has been brought down in recent years by the present Government. When the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) talked about rates and a policy of confrontation, I noticed that he did not say that as a result of the reductions in the general weight of taxation on individuals there should have been some amelioration in the relations between citizens and the Government and that they should have acted as an emollient—

Mr. Denis Howell: No one would have believed me if I had.

Mr. Maddan: Perhaps not if it had come from the hon. Gentleman. People may believe it if it comes from me. Therefore let me emphasise that we have to see rates in the context of the total burden of taxation.
Paragraph 7 of the explanatory paper points out that local government commitments are rising faster than public commitments as a whole. We all know that the rate burden is increasing. There can be no question that because of their nature rates create social hardships. I


welcome the increase in the domestic element which helps to alleviate those burdens. However, we must press upon the Government the need for additional sources of revenue to the rates under the control of local authorities which, I hope, their setting within limits the rate at which those taxes should be levied in their own areas.
I am not keen on local government being financed more and more by the Exchequer. Despite what my hon. Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) said about this not eating away at the independence of local government, in looking at how the health services are run—they are not run by local government—we see them controlled almost totally from the centre because they are financed almost totally from the centre. I do not want that to happen to local government.
I should think that enough has been said tonight about the deficiencies of the method of rate support grant to make us realise that in any system there will be deficiencies, because anything of this kind has to work on averages. Yet, as all hon. Members who have spoken have said, there are local variations which cannot be covered by a national formula. Therefore, apart from the objection to having more local government finance supplied by the Exchequer, in my view it is impossible to supply it fairly.
I strongly advocate the introduction or the allocation to local authorities of taxes in addition to the property tax, and having them control the rate at which they are levied in their areas, thus increasing their independence, financial mastery and responsibility.
Inevitably we have heard a great deal about revaluation. I welcome revaluation as being overdue for five years. We heard a great deal about the plight of Birmingham. I always feel strongly for hon. Members representing Birmingham constituencies, but I wonder why they should suddenly say how terrible it is that the basis of the rates is to go up because of the increased value of properties. If our incomes go up the base of our income tax is raised and we pay more. I find nothing strange in the fact that if the base on which rates are levied goes up comparably with other areas, people should pay more.

Mr. J. T. Price: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised this matter. I did not hear the earlier part of his speech. I served on valuation committees in days when the hon. Gentleman was not a Member of this House. When I reminded the late lamented Minister at the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, Mr. Henry Brooke, as he then was, on a famous occasion in Committee that if revaluation took place the basis would go up by at least 300 per cent., he said that I was grossly exaggerating the position. In fact that was what happened in the event. But rates are not supposed to go up. The rate poundage is supposed to be reduced in reverse order to the increase in the rateable value. There are other mutations of this matter which I should like to argue, but I cannot at this stage. Anyway, I want to deal with something else.

Mr. Maddan: We always enjoy the hon. Gentleman's interventions. He has, of course, recalled a prophecy with which I am not familiar.
It cannot be supposed that the effect of a change in the rating system will be identical on every local authority area in the country. We predicate an increase in local government expenditure of, I think, 5 per cent., and it cannot be thought odd if, as a result of all this, some ratepayers pay more in the period 1973–74 about which we are talking and which I imagine will not be a period of total freeze on remuneration.
I shall not comment on the Birmingham situation. It is not for me to do so, but if my hon. Friend cares to do so in winding up I shall, with others, listen with great respect to what he says. I do not think we can dodge the issue of revaluation, because if we are to maintain the rates—and we are bound to have the rates whatever other taxes are introduced for local government—anything that can be done to improve them is to be welcomed. If the valuations are not brought up to date from time to time hey become more and more unfair as between ratepayers within a given authority and between ratepayers in the country as a whole. I therefore welcome any step that improves the position.
I welcome too what my right hon. Friend emphasised about the improvement in rate rebates for the worse-off sections of the community. That is extremely welcome, particularly to people in a constituency such as mine.
I want to make short comments on three detailed points. The first is about the police. I very much welcome the provision for 4,000 additional policemen. The maintenance of the defence and safety of people is the primary duty of the Government before all else, and nothing else can fructify unless that is achieved.
The hon. Member for Small Heath said how terrible it was that more money was to be given to the maintenance of major roads, and he thereby supposed that less would be devoted to minor roads. I hope very much that less will be given to minor roads. I know of no country in the world where minor roads, used as little as they are, have so much money spent on them as in this country.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: My hon. Friend should come to Somerset.

Mr. Maddan: I shall be pleased to bump along the roads in Somerset, if that is what would happen to me, because it is a great waste of public money to try to bring minor roads up to a standard which is not only inappropriate to their purpose but usually adds to traffic dangers and destroys the environment by encouraging fast-moving traffic where it is not appropriate.
This year we are spending 10 per cent. more on roads than last year. Projections of the increase in total traffic show that by 1980 it will be about 50 per cent. more than it is now. If we go on increasing our expenditure in real terms by 10 per cent.—as is the case between this year and last—we shall double the expenditure on our roads for an increase in traffic of only 50 per cent.
There are fashions in these things, sometimes requiring that more and more must be spent and must go on being spent, far beyond the point when that rate of increase is appropriate. I was therefore glad to see the emphasis on principal roads. If one makes a priority of something, one should not be ashamed to admit that something else becomes a

posteriority. If the principal roads are our priority, let us not be ashamed to say that the minor roads are a posteriority.
The hon. Member for Gorton mentioned the Cambridge study. I have not read it recently, so perhaps he will correct me if I quote wrongly from memory. That study, however, had to select certain criteria by which to make its comparisons. On the selection of criteria depends which way the results go. I am sure that those who did the study tried to do the very best and most objective job, but they subjectively chose criteria and it was on those criteria that their comparisons were made.
Areas like East Sussex, for example, where I am concerned, and West Sussex, where I am not concerned but where the situation is much the same, are suffering under the present system of rate support grant because of the vast growth of the population in their State schools and of the social services because of the vast number of the elderly in those areas. Neither of those commitments is fully reflected in the formulae on which these grants depend.

Mr. Marks: It is true that the authors of the study chose their own objective, but it was equalisation. Their argument, rightly, was that some of the rate support grant elements were based on historical tradition rather than on the pure idea of equalisation.

Mr. Maddan: I am sure the hon. Member is right, but my point is that one's conclusion is produced by the way one considers a subject. In the end someone has to make a decision, and that is part of my general case against relying more and more heavily on central Government grants to cover local government expenditure. But we shall have rates and grants far into the future. When that future comes—1974 onwards—I hope that my last point will be taken into consideration.

10.38 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: I do not agree with the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan) about minor roads. There is some anxiety that there has been pressure to restrict expenditure on minor roads for some time, and in some of our towns the situation


has become critical. The idea that one can cut back much further in this area seems to me to be extremely doubtful. This matter should be considered selectively and carefully.
The hon. Member mentioned the need for alternative sources of revenue. We have all talked about this, but I doubt whether we will find alternative sources which do not fall foul of the same criteria which lead us to dislike rates and rateable values and their incidence on many people in our constituencies. We could more hopefully have moved towards alternative sources of revenue had we adopted different areas for our future local government, had we been brave enough to move into provinces or regions. This would have been far more suitable for any concept of new, independent sources of revenue, or certainly a fairer basis for levying any form of tax, and so on, that might be proposed.
However, I agree very much with what my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) has said. He set out extremely lucidly many of the main arguments and directed attention to some of the issues which concern us all deeply. We are concerned about the fact that there are at any rate very strong elements of evidence to suggest that our older industrial towns are getting a hammering, both through the rate support grant as it is at present operating and, even more particularly, under the revaluation as it is likely to take place. I am not as fortunate as my hon. Friend in being provided so lavishly with information, but in the industrial North East we fear that because of our very industrial position we are likely to be seriously affected by the revaluation and that that, added to other effects upon us, will make matters even more serious.
It is impossible for us to join in a paean of praise to the Government for their generosity to the domestic ratepayer when at the very best all they are doing is reversing some of the evils they committed earlier. As my hon. Friend pointed out, one way of getting plaudits is to do something that is quite monstrously wrong and then, over a period of a year or two, to remove a few of the monstrosities as one goes along and expect to be regarded particularly favour-

ably in that way. That does not create a very warm feeling in our minds.
We all need to look at the implications of these orders for our constituencies. It is logical and right that we should do that. Some of us represent areas which are desperately trying to overcome well-known deficiencies of the past, where we have all the associated social problems linked with unemployment—not merely some of the worst unemployment figures in the country but also welfare implications which impose particularly heavy burdens upon us.
We see no hope whatever of getting anywhere near the figure of a 5 per cent. increase to which the Government have referred unless, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) suggested, we are prepared to cut in a ridiculous way the development of essential services and to get rid of some of our well-qualified staff. That we shall certainly not do.
There are obvious immediate jobs which we have to tackle and which are all the more obvious because we are urgently trying to pull ourselves out of very serious unemployment and other situations, and naturally we have to meet at least our share of the cost of all this. For example, on Tyneside we have the problem of meeting part at least of the cost of the major new sewerage development. We are all delighted that we are now able to undertake this—it is a very important job—but it is bound to impose a charge upon all the constituent authorities. We have to accept that cost. This is all part of the figures which we have to bear in mind.
I have mentioned already the social services which are inevitably linked with our problems of heavy unemployment. We are bound to face special charges in connection with the exciting developments, which we all welcome, in passenger transport and the further prospects of an even more dramatic kind; and I understand that heavy costs are to be imposed as a consequence of the new police authorities. These are all figures which will bear heavily upon an authority like mine, which is an old industrial area seeking to move out of the old conditions in order to attract new industry, eager to put a new face on the whole condition of living in the area.
These are the reasons why anxieties which have been expressed in other parts of the country should be even more heavily accentuated in an area like mine and why we cannot be satisfied with the figures produced by the Government. We hope even at this stage that we may look forward to proposals which may help us. There was some indication from the Minister of a recognition of the difficulties in relation to the rate support grant. We shall certainly look forward to the possibilities in the new legislation, although I appreciate that we cannot expect very much from the present Government.

10.47 p.m.

Mr. Julius Silverman: There seems to be some misconception certainly by the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan) concerning the basis of the complaint of Birmingham—and not only Birmingham, although Birmingham is probably the greatest sufferer in this respect—about the rate increase which has been described by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Kinsey).
The Prime Minister said in his recent speech that there was no reason why the revaluation in itself should mean increased rates for anybody. He was quite wrong. Birmingham proves it. Probably he assumed, as some people have assumed, that if there is an increase in the assessment, there is a corresponding decrease in the rate poundage. If that were correct, and if the increase were equally distributed over every section of domestic hereditaments, industrial, commercial and miscellaneous hereditaments, no doubt that argument would apply; but it does not. This is why the Prime Minister is quite wrong, and why he is arousing hopes and expectations which will not be realised. I am not assuming that he did it knowingly. He did it because he does not know anything about the subject. He does not know how the system operates.
Birmingham has already been dealt with, and it is worth while repeating some of the figures which have been given. It is expected that after the improvement in the domestic element is taken into consideration and after the inevitable in-

crease by inflation in the cost of services, which has been conceded by the Prime Minister as being inevitable, by somewhere in the region of 10 per cent., the contribution by the domestic ratepayer in Birmingham will be increased by more than 27 per cent. That is a catastrophic increase and there is bound to be an outraged reaction by Birmingham ratepayers.
I suppose that the Government, whatever methods they choose, desire to control inflation and wish the workers to accept the price freeze and eventually to restrain industrial wage demands. How will one do that in Birmingham when the ratepayer will face a 27 per cent. increase on his rates? The workers will say "This 5 per cent. principle is a lot of hokum. It applies to my wages but does not apply to anything else." One of the first sufferers will be the council tenant who in many cases is faced with a considerable increase in his rent under the Housing Finance Act and this great increase in his rates. How will he react? How can one persuade the worker to apply the principle of moderation when making wage demands?
In Birmingham some people will be better off in consequence of revaluation; some will be worse off. Industry is better off; miscellaneous and commercial hereditaments are better off. It is the poor domestic ratepayer who will suffer. That will happen because of the uneven development in rating valuation. In Birmingham the domestic rate has increased by a factor of three because of revaluations whereas the valuations for industry and commerce have increased 2·3 times and miscellaneous valuations by only 2·1. The consequence of the disturbance in the balance will be that the commercial and industrial ratepayers may be better off or in the same position in spite of the increase in the total rate demand whereas the domestic ratepayer will be very much worse off.
My hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath suggested that the Government could have used methods to correct that position. For instance a different method was used in 1956 when the Government decided to give a reduction of 20 per cent. on all industrial and commercial hereditaments. There is no reason why there should not be variations between different areas to ensure that a measure which may


benefit some areas does not hit other areas very hard.
The Government announced that there might be some modification or improvement in the rent rebate scheme. This will basically comprise a standstill arrangement. The rent rebate scheme now affords, in spite of inflation, benefit to an extremely restricted segment of society. A drastic increase must be made before the system will give any real benefit. The Government ought to look at the measure again. It is all very well for them to expect local authorities to confine their rate increases to 5 per cent. That is nonsense in the case of Birmingham.
One bears in mind that local authorities comprise essentially a labour-intensive industry. As my hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath has said, Birmingham could confine rate increases to 5 per cent. only if it sacked about 2,500 to 3,000 men, about 5 per cent. of its total labour force including the police forces. Such a course of action would prove disastrous to Birmingham, which has a high rate of unemployment. That would not be a realistic way of dealing with the situation.
I therefore ask the Government to look at the position again. If they wish to obtain acceptance of a policy of wage restraint and some sort of an end to inflation, they should try to curb the extraordinary inflationary rate demand which will be the consequence of this policy. They should adopt a more elastic way of dealing with matters. Otherwise I can assure them that their chance of getting any policy of moderation in wages is practically nil.
We want to hear what the Minister has to say, whether the orders will be persisted in, with all their drastic consequences, or whether there is still the opportunity of looking at them again. The 1972–73 order will fatally affect the rates for 1973–74 in Birmingham and many other large cities.
An hon. Member on the Government side said that he objected to increased Government assistance for local government finance because it would take away local authority independence. I do not believe that. Already the Government are capable, however much they give, of restricting to whatever extent they wish the activities of a local authority. When

the Housing Finance Act is in full operation the Government will not pay anything; in many cases they will be making a profit. Yet that will not prevent them from dictating the terms upon which local authorities act, dictating the level of rents and rebates and all sorts of other things.
This has nothing whatever to do with the amount which the Government contribute. The independence of local government depends upon how much independence the Government wish to give to it. The policy upon which we embarked of a progressive reduction of the domestic element in the rates, beginning with an average reduction of 5p per annum, was a good one. Basically the income of the Exchequer is derived much more equitably in that way. If that policy had been persisted in and accelerated it would have been the best way of dealing with the problem. This is the opposite of what is happening now, when the domestic ratepayer in Birmingham has to pay a great deal more. It is a burden which he will not accept without a completely outraged reaction.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): We have been debating the rate support grant order for the last full year before local government reorganisation. As the House has recognised, it is an important measure involving enormous sums of money—an aggregate forecast of relevant expenditure of £5,216 million which, after allowing for inflation, is about 12½ per cent. greater in real terms than the expenditure actually incurred in 1971–2. To put it in more homely terms, it represents about £107 for every man, woman and child in England and Wales.
The debate has ranged widely. It has touched revaluation and the Government's policies for the control of inflation; has given hon. Members an opportunity to air their local treasurers' briefs and it has given the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) a chance to exercise his considerable penchant for exaggeration and scare-mongering.
I was struck by the contrast between the hon. Gentleman's speech and the contributions made by his hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant), Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) and South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop). Each spoke with moderation and


good sense whereas the hon. Member for Small Heath, speaking on behalf of the official Opposition, treated the House to a 48-minute speech which was a farrago of misrepresentations and grotesque exaggeration.
I noted some of the phrases used by the hon. Member. He said that the great city of Birmingham would descend into wholesale chaos, into a major catastrophe, into devastation and administrative anarchy. He spoke of the possible sacking by Birmingham of thousands of policemen and school teachers. From what I know of Birmingham, I believe that that great city will be there tomorrow and next year. It will have a measure of complaints but it will not descend into wholesale chaos and administrative anarchy.
Throughout the hon. Gentleman's speech there was no mention whatever of the fact that these orders will provide for a substantially increased proportion of local authority expenditure being borne by the Government—indeed, from 58 per cent. to a figure of 60 per cent. He did not indicate that this was the largest ever increase.

Mr. Denis Howell: Yes, I did.

Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Member did not say that the additional sum of £400 million would he a considerable increase in help amounting to £8 per head for everybody in the country. There was not one word about the help that is being given to the domestic ratepayer, namely an increase from 10·5p to 15·4p in the £ to help hold down increases in rates. Nor did he make one comment on the extra help to some 800,000 people on lower incomes in the shape of the new income limits on rate rebates at a cost of £2¾ million.
The hon. Member did not mention any of those things. He repudiated, on behalf of the Labour Party, the whole principle of the process of revaluation. He reminded me very much of the statement that was once made by his right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) some years ago at this Dispatch Box. The right hon. Gentleman, speaking then as Minister of Housing, said that we must get rid of the rates. Labour's idea of getting rid of the rates was to put them up enormously during its period of office.
I shall come to the hon. Gentleman's more sensible points in a moment—

Mr. Marks: The hon. Gentleman is giving the impression that during the time of the Labour Government rates rose continuously. Labour Members have been at pains to point out that the 5p increase each year in domestic rate subsidy meant that domestic rates stayed pretty well as they were for several years.

Mr. Griffiths: I am happy to respond to the hon. Member for Gorton, who makes a reasonable speech in a reasonable manner, but he will not forget that it was the Labour Government which on one notorious occasion removed the whole rate increase support from the local authorities and left them completely in the lurch.
I come now to the two general points I wish to make—

Mr. Howell: I thank the Minister for giving way and for saying that he is coming to the two main points that we are raising about what Birmingham should do in the situation in which it finds itself. I do not object to his reply in response to my speech, because when hon. Members read my speech in HANSARD they will see that I dealt specifically with every one of the points that the Minister now accuses me of not dealing with. May I take up the point about chaos and confusion? The hon. Gentleman will recall that I applied that description to the 100,000 appeals against rating valuation assessments which the city treasurer now estimates he will receive. If that will not create chaos and confusion in Birmingham, I should like to know what will.

Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Member may write whatever footnotes he wants to his speech, but he delivered himself of a farrago of nonsense.
The two main points I must make in dealing with the orders are that in making these orders successive Governments have had regard to the growth in services which all our people want and, at the same time, the need to restrain expenditure which the ratepayers also want. This year the dominant consideration has been the need to mitigate the rise in the level of rates as part of our national effort to counter inflation.
I am very glad that the local authorities, through their associations, have agreed with the Government on the aims of this policy and on the main elements of the joint action which is necessary to achieve it. In so doing the local authorities, which must bear the brunt of the action in the localities, have shown a much more responsive attitude than have the official Opposition.
My second point is that the figures we are discussing are forecasts of global totals. They can be no more than that. Within these totals there are, of course, wide variations between individual authorities. That, too, is as it should be because a local authority is free to spend more or less than the forecast if it chooses so to do. But the amount of the grant paid by the Exchequer will not vary except to take account of variations in prices and costs. So if the forecast expenditure of a local council is, for example, £1 million, with grant at 60 per cent., the amount the Government will provide will be £600,000. But if the local authority chooses to increase its £1 million to £1,200,000 the grant remains the same and its proportion is therefore only 50 per cent. Conversely, if it spends only £950,000 the effective rate of grant is something better than 60 per cent.
In short—I am stating the obvious, but it is necessary to state it for all that—the choice is for the local authorities to make, because it is they who are responsible for the level of services and it is they who must face the music if their electors are dissatisfied with the services provided or with the level of rates charged to pay for them. Anything that the authorities choose to spend over and above what we have forecast will fall entirely on the ratepayers. But if, as the Government hope, they spend less than the forecast, the whole of the savings will accrue to the ratepayers.

Mr. Marks: Surely the global forecast must be based on the proportion allocated, for example, to the raising of the school leaving age and the proportion of expenditure on school books.

Mr. Griffiths: I will come to the hon. Gentleman's speech in a moment. I was making one or two general observations.
Hon. Members have referred to a variety of aspects of the expenditure which is taken into account. The hon. Member for Small Heath said in opening that the local authority associations disagreed with the expenditure estimates. However, I am advised that the figures of relevant expenditure were agreed with the local authority associations to within £27 million out of a total of £5,200 million. Moreover the difference was not about what would be spent but upon the improvement which, as a matter of policy, should be achieved.
The hon. Member for Small Heath also referred to education. The only difference that arose during the prolonged and cordial discussions was whether the improvement in non-teaching costs should be 3 per cent. or 4½ per cent. That is a difference of £13 million in £2,600 million of relevant expenditure, which is only half of 1 per cent.
The hon. Member for Gorton referred in a thoughtful speech to the question of children up to 15 years of age. They are included in the base payment, which reflects generally the special costs of childrens' services. The real variations in education costs are fully reflected by the education supplementary payments, which take account of the numbers of children in schools of different types. The hon. Gentleman made a number of detailed points which I will study carefully in the morning. I will write to him with detailed answers to the points he raised.
The hon. Member for Small Health referred to road maintenance. I am advised that the local authorities over the years, and certainly this year, accept that any increase of more than 1 per cent. per year represents a real improvement in the standard of road maintenance. The figures which we have allowed for 1973–74 are 13 per cent. higher than the amount spent in 1971–72. Over that two-year period there is room for a substantial improvement in road maintenance standards.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan), who has given much thought to local government finance, referred to the police. The police account for half of all specific grants. The Government are well aware of the public's concern for law and order. My hon. Friend will know that the White Paper


on public expenditure which was published yesterday indicates the high ranking that the Government give to the police service in the nation's financial priorities. We are concerned that the deficiencies in police strengths should be made good as soon as possible. As my right hon. Friend said, the estimate of expenditure agreed with the local authorities provides for 4,000 extra policemen. That is the greatest increase that has been achieved for many years.
The additional cost of providing that specific amount is £14 million. Having been, in opposition, the adviser to the Police Federation, I can say that that is in striking contrast to the period when the Opposition were in power, when police numbers fell regularly year by year.

Mr. J. T. Price: To put the matter in perspective, the hon. Gentleman should also state that although police recruiting was unsatisfactory under the Labour Government, there is now high unemployment and there is always better recruitment to the Army and the police when there is mass unemployment in industry.

Mr. Griffiths: I will not pursue that argument except to say that my experience of the police is that they do not look to the ranks of the unemployed for their recruits.
Other hon. Members have spoken to a variety of subjects contained within the estimates. Reference has been made to the health and personal social services. The orders provide for their continued growth in real terms at 4½ per cent. a year, and in the personal social services, which are of great importance to the standard of living of ordinary people, there is provision for an increase of social staff of more than one-third and for an increased expenditure on services for the handicapped of just on 50 per cent. I hope that these increases will be welcomed.
In the general field of the environmental services, the Government can be reasonably proud of what they have managed to do about derelict land clearance, in the provision of grants for eyesore improvements, slum clearance, and the general improvement grants which have made better the housing conditions in many older twilight areas. This has been a success story. For every £ provided

for home improvements in 1969–70 we are now making provision for nearly £5. It is a measure of the massive improvement in the living conditions of thousands of people that in 1970–71 improvement grants by local authorities to private owners were double those made in 1969–70 and those made in 1971–72 were double those made in 1970–71. This is an illustration of the very large increase that the central Government have given and continue to give to local authorities to improve the quality of life of people in some obsolete industrial areas.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central rightly spoke of the dramatic improvements in his city. I have seen some of them, such as the slum clearance, the improvements in twilight housing, the derelict land clearance programme, the tree planting and so on. The hon. Gentleman should reflect that against the background of that massive improvement it is only reasonable that an independent review body should revalue the property of Stoke-on-Trent in an upward direction.

Mr. Cant: I am somewhat deflated by that last sentence. I was hoping to exploit the Under-Secretary's generous mood and ask whether in the expenditure to which he is referring for 1973–74 we could look forward to an extension of life of the special environmental schemes.

Mr. Griffiths: This is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend. I will convey to him the hon. Gentleman's views.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hove made a number of suggestions about possible changes in the whole financing of local government. My hon. Friend will understand that I am not able to pursue that subject, but I assure him that his suggestions will be considered by my right hon. and learned Friend on the whole question of legislation dealing with local government finance.
I make it clear to those hon. Members from Birmingham who have spoken that the orders are not confined to Birmingham. On the contrary, they concern the whole country. I have seen the estimates that Birmingham, Stoke-on-Trent, Sheffield and many other cities have made of the effects of revaluation on their domestic ratepayers. Although the final


figures are not yet available to us from all authorities, it seems likely that the estimates of those cities are not far from correct.
It is only right to point out in a national forum and not in the city council chamber of Birmingham that although some cities are hard hit by revaluation, there are other cities which benefit considerably. It may be helpful to quote some examples from the league table of revaluation on the basis of the preliminary figures available to me. Birmingham undoubtedly loses—that is, its rates go up, and sharply. But Bradford gains. [Interruption.] I am speaking of the domestic rate, because that is what the debate was about. Darlington gains; Stoke-on-Trent loses; Doncaster gains; Eastbourne gains; Manchester loses; Leeds gains; Portsmouth loses; Southampton gains; Sunderland gains; Wolverhampton loses. The right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland), who speaks on local government for the Opposition, is not here, perhaps because he knows that his town gains.
I apologise if I sounded like the BBC announcer after the First Division football matches on Saturday afternoon. The point I am making is that this is a national revaluation. What it seeks to do is to bring about fairness, and the result is that in some areas there will be an increase and in others there will be a decrease, relatively speaking.

Mr. Julius Silverman: How is that fair?

Mr. Griffiths: Because the revaluation is based on an objective, impartial review of the real rental values of properties in each area. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have considerable respect, is not following his hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath, who spoke for his party, in rejecting the whole concept of an impartial review body making such a revaluation.

Mr. Silverman: I am not opposed to the principle of revaluation. Some form of revaluation is clearly implicit in the rating system. The only point is that these increases and decreases are not just due to the fact that some domestic property goes up more than others; it is due to the balance between the domestic and the commercial and industrial

hereditaments in the same local authority. That is what creates the imbalance and unfairness.

Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman can pursue that point, but I am a little pressed for time and there are one or two other matters that I must deal with.

Mr. Denis Howell: I do not want to follow the hon. Gentleman's example of personal abuse. Before he leaves that point I must ask him the simple question which will face the city councils of Birmingham, Manchester, Wolverhampton and the other places he mentioned. A 27 per cent. increase in rates in order simply to stand still is, by any standard, catastrophic. What does the Minister expect the city councils concerned to do about that sort of increase when the Government are demanding a wage freeze for the ratepayers in those places?

Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman must recognise that the present Government, if not his party when they were the Government, believe that local authorities can, should and will manage their own affairs. If he had listened to me a little earlier, he would have realised that the decision is up to the local authorities. If they wish to spend more than the forecast figure, they will have to bear the consequences from their own resources. If they decide to spend somewhat less, the proportion of grant to their expenditure will be greater.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Kinsey) pointed out that the revaluation had been carried out by an independent body. I well understand that the hon. Member for Small Heath does not like independent bodies.

Mr. Howell: This has nothing to do with the matter.

Mr. Griffiths: When an independent review body produced the recommendation of the Boundary Commission on parliamentary constituencies, his Government whipped his party through the House to reject the results. Here again we have an independent review body. The hon. Gentleman's Government, when presented with such a body's findings in the 1960s, postponed the revaluation, and we are now putting right his Government's error many years ago in running away from what was then found to be needed.
The domestic ratepayer will be helped next year by three actions that the Government are taking. First, there is the increase in the relief to be given to all domestic rate poundages. As my right hon. Friend says in his report to the House, the amount by which rating authorities are to reduce the rate pound-ages which would otherwise be levied on domestic hereditaments has been prescribed by the Secretary of State as 6p. I hope the House will recognise that that is the most generous support that has ever been provided to local authorities. It is equivalent to an increase before revaluation of from 10·5p to 15·4p—that is to say, an increase of almost 50 per cent. in help for domestic ratepayers. That cannot be bad in any man's language.
Secondly, domestic ratepayers will share in the benefits arising from the increase in grants generally. Indeed, of the £104 million in extra grants arising from the increase from 58 to 60 per cent. the increase in the domestic element will take £61 million, the remaining £43 million going to relieve all rates generally.
Finally, the poorest households will benefit from the new income limits for rate rebates announced today by my right hon. Friend.
Looking to the future, in fixing their rates next year authorities will have to take a view about the rate of movement of costs and prices during the coming year. The Government have not yet announced the second phase of their counter-inflationary policy, but provided that authorities exercise a reasonable restraint on their expenditure we are satisfied that the record level of grant which we are now providing, combined with the large amount provided to hold down the domestic element, will ensure that the increase in rates in general can be held down to a level consistent with the increases in prices and costs that the authorities will have to meet.
We recognise, as did my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the Guildhall, that there will be local variations. Some of these will be due to revaluation, and in some areas domestic ratepayers will have to bear a larger share of the total burden than they did in the past. But the whole House will recognise these

facts. Agreement has been reached with the local authority associations on all but a handful of items in this large amount of money, and we are satisfied that we have made healthy provision for the satisfactory development of local authority services. In doing so we have helped them and the country to contain inflation.
Equally the financial help offered by the Government to local authorities and ratepayers must be seen for what it is, namely, the largest amount of help ever given to local authorities and ratepayers, greater absolutely and greater relatively as a proportion of local authority expenditure. We are providing an extra £400 million, equivalent to more than £8 per head for every man, woman and child in England and Wales. We are increasing the domestic element and thereby helping to shield the householder by about 50 per cent. at a cost of £61 million. We are also increasing the rent rebate limits to help the worse off.
All these things taken together demonstrate that we have put right the failure of the previous Government to allow revaluation to proceed. They went in for government by postponement, and we have refused to do that. This policy and these orders demonstrate also the Government's concern to improve the environment and the quality of life of our people, to help to contain inflation and, at the same time, to give assistance to the ratepayer.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: We have just listened to a ministerial reply which in the view of many of us is little short of scandalous. The hon. Gentleman has not said to what extent the ratepayers of Manchester, Birmingham and other major cities will suffer as a result of revaluation. Let the Minister indicate to the ratepayers of these county boroughs the extent to which they will suffer as the result of the rating revaluation.

It being half-past Eleven o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business).

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Rate Support Grant Order 1972, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th November, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Rate Support Grant (Increase) Order 1972, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th November, be approved.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

NON-METROPOLITAN DISTRICTS

11.30 p.m.

The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): I beg to move,
That the English Non-metropolitan Districts (Definition) Order 1972, a draft of which was laid before this House on 22nd November, be approved.
The geography of local government reform has perhaps occupied more of the time of the House than any other single aspect of local government reform. That is probably right and as the House would wish. It is important to get the districts, the counties and the whole geography of reformed local government right.
In the Local Government Bill, which is now the Local Government Act 1972, we set before the House the division of England and Wales into counties, metropolitan counties and non-metropolitan counties, and the division of the metropolitan counties into metropolitan districts. In those cases it was for the House to decide where the boundaries should lie, what counties there should be and what metropolitan districts there should be. Having decided that, there were left 953 existing authorities in the non-metropolitan counties to be organised into new districts which would be large enough to have the resources to carry out the functions given to non-metropolitan county districts in the Act but small enough not to be too remote from their public.
We appointed a Boundary Commission to advise the Secretary of State on the division of the counties into districts. That commission started its work shortly after the Second Reading of the Local Government Bill in November 1971. It was then only a commission-designate because it had not the authority of the Act until some months later. But it has been at work for more than 12 months.
On its appointment as a commission-designate it immediately asked for representations from existing local authorities and from anyone who liked to make

representations to it. I know that a number of right hon. and hon. Members made representations separately perhaps from their local authorities, as did members of the public and other organisations. During that stage I understand that the commission received some 2,500 representations. It had various meetings and it produced a report showing its draft proposals for districts. That was in April 1972.
That report gave an opportunity to all those concerned to get their teeth into something: here were proposals which could be argued about, which could have representations made about them and which could be accepted if people saw fit. Following that report containing draft proposals, there were no fewer than 28,000 representations to the commission. It worked out, however, that well over 80 per cent. of the resultant districts were acceptable.
The commission held a number of meetings in areas where there were issues and eventually came to its final report. The result was that the 953 county districts with which it started were reduced to 278 in its draft proposals. This figure was slightly increased in the final proposals to 296, and that is the number which appears in the order.
It is interesting to note that between the draft proposals and the final report the commission produced 14 districts with populations below 40,000. In its draft proposals there were no such small districts. The guidelines which the Secretary of State had given stated that in exceptional circumstances there could be small districts of that size where the population was sparse and the area large. Apart from those few districts below 40,000, there resulted 104 districts within the figures given in the guidelines as the average which the commission should seek—districts with populations between 75,000 and 100,000—and 111 below 75,000 and 81 above 100,000.
Those guidelines appear in the report on pages 2 and 3. I will not weary the House by reading them. However, I should refer to one point about the guidelines which has recently received some prominence in the Press.
My noble Friend Lord Sandford, in a debate on the order in another place, made a remark about how the guidelines might affect areas in the Home Counties.


A newspaper read more into his words than he intended. It interpreted them to mean that some guidelines had been given to the commission relating specifically to these areas around London. This is quite untrue. There were no such guidelines.
My noble Friend was interpreting paragraph 2 of the guidelines as it might apply to London. That provides:
Except in sparsely populated areas the aim should be to define districts with current populations generally within the range of about 75,000–100,000.
Applying that to populated areas around the metropolitan area of greater London it could be said that that is the kind of figure that the commission could be expected to find. Indeed, on average, it did. The average of those districts is about 90,000.
In the process of reaching its final report the commission undertook a very thorough examination of all the representations that had been made to it. It held meetings where it thought there were issues and made unaccompanied visits so that it might be well acquainted with the districts about which it had to make a decision.
Looking at the calibre of the commission—we were lucky to obtain Sir Edmund Compton as the chairman and other members well experienced in public works and particularly in local government—looking at the process by which it carried out its work and looking at the final report, my right hon. and learned Friend and I decided that it would be right to accept the report and recommendations as a whole.
I do not mean by that that we merely took the volume and made an order without reading through the report with great care. I studied the report with great interest especially as, after the process of the Local Government Bill going through the House. I felt fairly well acquainted with the districts which appear in the report. I was deeply interested to see how the commission, with all the work that it did, had come to its conclusions over the various areas.
This is an exercise in which it is not possible to please everybody, and it is astonishing that following the 296 districts produced in the report there are tonight only seven amendments on the

Order Paper complaining—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] There may be some others. The number of hon. Members present tonight is not a high proportion of the districts proposed.

Mr. J. T. Price: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The time allowed for this debate, which started at 11.30 is insufficient to allow all those who wish to take part in the debate to do so. I make no complaint about that now. Do I understand that the debate is open-ended, or is it limited to an hour and a half? If the latter, ought not the Minister to be a little lenient with the House and allow those who want to protest about the order to do so instead of hogging all the time that is available to us?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): The debate is limited in time.

Mr. Page: I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman thinks that I have been hogging the time—

Mr. A. G. F. Hall-Davis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not a fact that you have power to adjourn the debate if you are not satisfied that sufficient time has been allowed for all hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate to do so?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is that power tinder the Standing Order.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During business questions last week I asked the Leader of the House whether he did not agree that it was outrageous that we should change the whole face of local communities in an hour and a half, and he replied that we should see how we got on and that it might be necessary to provide more time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That remains to be seen.

Mr. Page: If it is thought that I have been hogging the time by spending 11 minutes on introducing a very important order, if I have misjudged the opposition to it from my right hon. and hon. Friends behind me and from right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite and if it is the wish of the House, I shall sit down at once and trust that the House will


give me the opportunity to answer any points that may be made.

11.43 p.m.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: I shall be very brief. I merely repeat the point that I made earlier, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if you feel that there is insufficient time for right hon. and hon. Members to cover points which they may feel—and which many of their boroughs may feel—are vitally important to the future of whole communities you will bear in mind the view, which is a purely persuasive authority, expressed by the Leader of the House during business questions last week, and look with a fair amount of flexibility at the matter to see whether more time might be allowed.
I wish to refer to only one matter, but it is of general application because it touches upon the procedures of the Boundary Commission. As regards North Devon, I happen to believe that the initial proposals made on 26th April, which were provisional, were the correct ones. They are on page 15 and what they basically say is that there should be one area, the North Devon area, of 102,000. I happen to believe that the majority of the local councils, which were fully consulted, gave overwhelming support to that proposal then and now, and those councils represent the majority of the population living in that area.
We then move on to the final proposals, which we find on page 12, where for the first time two particular districts are proposed, one with a population of about 42,000 and another of 66,000. None of the major councils concerned had been consulted as to whether or not they approved of this change. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] From that response I judge that other hon. Members may have had the same experience.
I find the procedure very odd, therefore. If one considers the letter which Mr. Delapons wrote on behalf of the Local Government Boundary Commissioners on 25th April, one sees that in paragraph 18 he made it clear that the provisional proposals would be changed or amended only if certain criteria obtained. The first was that there must be a substantial measure of agreement among the local authorities concerned

for any variation. In this case there was no substantial measure of agreement, and indeed, two of the largest authorities, Barnstaple and Ilfracombe, were never consulted, and nor were Lynton and South Molton—all four of which were in favour of the original proposals and first learned of the variation when it was published in the final review.
The second criterion was that any variation must be within the close or preferred population range of 75,000 to 100,000. This variation in fact does precisely the reverse. It creates two districts with a population of 42,000 and 66,000 respectively and further depletes another district, that of Okehampton, by the extraction of Holsworthy.
The third criterion was that the variation should not involve the division of existing county district areas, nor should it render invalid the pattern of districts elsewhere in the country. The proposed variation does both those things and, I repeat, without consultation with the major boroughs involved. We were then told that another criterion was the parliamentary boundaries. Again that has been overlooked, and overlooked without consultation.
Finally, the one particular matter is that, by immediately reducing the population of the borough of Barnstaple to less than one-fifth of the whole area, what happens to be the oldest borough in England may now have difficulty in retaining even a parish status.
No alternatives were put forward and no indication was given that the plan which these councils had originally agreed would suddenly, without notice, be varied. Therefore, I believe—this is my major point—that it is very strange that, when councils have agreed to draft proposals, they should suddenly, amend without having been consulted, find that those proposals have been changed.
It is ridiculous, when one is trying to reduce the number of districts, to create two major centres which are only nine miles apart in the middle of a purely rural area. The last time I was opposing a change of this sort in the county of Devon was when the Labour Government, with their lack of wisdom, made Torquay into a county borough. I am very pleased to say that the present Government have reversed that decision and


I prophesy that they will have to reverse this proposal, and for substantially the same reasons.
Now that we are moving 250,000 people out of Plymouth into the county of Devon, it becomes essential that the other centres are of a sizable proportion. When one considers that Torbay, Exeter and Plymouth will be three of the regional centres and Barnstaple the fourth, the very least one could hope is that it would have a population of, say, 100,000, and not of the very small area which is now suggested.
Finally, on the merits, North Devon is an entity on its own. Barnstaple, which is the civic centre, is the centre for planning of the North Devon area, although of course, under these varied proposals, all that would have to change. It is the centre for the fire and police services, the post office, the medical officer of health and the hospital management committee. It is regarded as one area for the purposes of roads and spur roads under the Department of the Environment. It is the centre at the moment for the administration of the courts, it is the centre for the water board and for the Department of Employment, where the manager is, and it is the centre for the tourist industry. Indeed it has a civic centre which is an adequate administrative centre for looking after the whole of the area. Already we have operated a working committee on the basis that the two areas will be combined—or, more accurately, that there would be one North Devon authority.
Finally, the procedure involving variations is strange to say the least. If people had been more thoroughly consulted in this case we would either have suggested that areas 1 and 2 be combined as was originally intended or that the area should correspond to the parliamentary constituency, or the parliamentary constituency possibly with the addition of Torrington. I believe that the procedure here is regrettable and that the recommendations are potentially disastrous.

11.50 p.m.

Mr. Peter Kirk: I agree with the general points made by the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe). I add my personal regret that a matter of this importance has come on at this hour of the night and with

limited time. The constituencies of a very large number of hon. Members are affected and those hon. Members should have an opportunity to speak. For that reason I shall be extremely brief.
My second reason for agreeing with the right hon. Gentleman is that in the case affecting my constituency, as apparently in the case affecting his, no consultation whatsoever took place between the announcement of the provisional and the final recommendations of the Commission.
The third reason why I feel strongly that the order should not pass tonight is that, as I understand what my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development had to say, the Government have decided that it is easier to accent all the recommendations without any consideration rather than to examine the problem on its merits; and on its merits, certainly in the case I have in mind, there is no case whatsoever for the change which the Boundary Commission proposed and which the Government have endorsed in the order.
Taking the case of Essex districts Nos. 2 and 8, district No. 2 as proposed by the provisional Boundary Commission report last April consisted of Halstead urban district, Halstead rural district, Braintree urban district and Braintree rural district, with a total population of 75,897 and a rateable value of about £2¾ million. This was supported by Essex County Council and by two of the four district councils involved, the two biggest ones.
At the same time the Boundary Commission provisionally recommended a district No. 8 of Maldon municipal borough, Burnham urban district, Witham urban district and Maldon rural district, with a total population of 57,590 and a rateable value of about £2½ million. Both these were small, by the guidelines which the then Secretary of State laid down, but they were viable.
Subsequently and without any consultation a second report was produced transferring Witham urban district from district No. 8 to district No. 2. The result is that district No. 2 will now have a population of 93,000 and a rateable value of £3½ million, while district No. 8 will have a population of 40,000 and a rateable value of £1½ million. No reason for this change has been given, but I


think that certain facts should be brought out.
First, the change has been produced by the move of Witham urban district from district No. 8 to district No. 2. Witham urban district is a growing area. The result is that district No. 2, which is already twice the size of district No. 8, will continue to grow, while district No. 8 will remain reasonably static, until the great new airport at Maplin, or Foulness—whichever one cares to call it—begins to have an effect there. Even then it is unlikely that district No. 8 will be viable for a very great number of years.
There was no consultation. No proper reasons were given. There is no community of interest whatsoever between Witham urban district, which now goes into district No. 2, and the area which I represent, which is a purely rural area to the north of the proposed new district. The result is that the Government, by accepting these proposals, have created a district wholly imbalanced, with far too heavy a population in the southern area, and the northern area, which I represent, almost totally deprived, as it will be, of services in this part of the world.
I hope that I have been brief. I believe that the procedure which has been adopted in this case has been outrageous. The House is being asked to accept proposals at a very advanced hour of the night and in a very short time which it should not be asked to accept. I hope very much that the debate will be adjourned until a time when we can consider these matters more properly.

11.55 p.m.

Mr. J. T. Price: I strongly echo the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk). To expect the House of Commons to conduct a serious debate on a matter like this at 11.30 p.m. on the eve of Christmas is not only an outrage; it is to treat the House with complete contempt. I do not want to exaggerate anything or to waste time, but I with other hon. Members interested in this matter have been putting pressure on Her Majesty's Ministers for some time to bring this matter before the House. Had it not been for the activity and the vigilance of a few hon. Members who see in this proposal a challenge to the

basic democratic structure of this country, there would have been no debate at all.
It was only last Thursday, when I had my last exchanges with the Leader of the House, that I began to see that we were at last going to have a debate. But this debate is only going through the motions. Here we have a document of 44 pages covering 296 districts and about 2,000 towns and villages throughout the length and breadth of England, the future administrative structure of which is to be fixed for many years ahead in a desultory debate of this kind, when most Members who would love to join us are away in their constituencies or keeping appointments on the eve of Christmas. This is not only discourteous to the House; it is a breach of the Statutory Instruments Act.
It is laid down that where the Government need orders for delegated legislation, by either the negative or affirmative procedure, such orders should be laid on the Table for 40 days. We seem to have reached a stage in our affairs when civil servants and those who guide them—and one does not criticise civil servants so much as the Ministers who allow the machine to operate in this way—are able to create a situation in which the matter that ought to come before the House for 40 days never does so. Therefore, the proposal to operate these specific orders—and I shall be as brief as I can on the point of principle—

Mr. Graham Page: If I may interrupt the hon. Gentleman, he is mistaken on the question of the laying of orders. He suggested that an order had to be laid before the House for 40 days. Of course, the 40 days applies to the tabling of a Prayer—a negative resolution.

Mr. Price: I accept that. With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I served for three years as a member of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, so I speak with some authority and knowledge of these matters. The Minister is quite right. The negative procedure requires 40 days. But even the affirmative procedure does not allow any Executive to take it for granted that at any time they like, by merely printing the order and putting it in the Vote Office, they can put the order into operation without consulting the House about it.
To deal with my part of the country, the county of Lancashire is being cut up in a most peculiar way by the order, on page 23 of the document which is before us. I represent a district of Lancashire, the Westhoughton constituency, which is composed partly of small industrial towns and a large part geographically of truly rural villages stretching along the Douglas Valley over the foothills of the Pennines, in one of the most beautiful parts of England. I say that, I hope, without exaggeration because the right hon. Gentleman is as familiar with it as I am. He occupies the neighbouring constituency.
Here we have a situation that all the rural districts in West Lancashire—the Wigan rural district, which I represent, and the West Lancashire rural district, which the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Soref) represents—are not being attached, as they should be by any common sense administration, to the country market town of Ormskirk, which is their natural centre. If they are to be detached from Wigan rural district, the other parts which I represent should be centred on Ormskirk and not on Skelmersdale. This has been ignored by the Boundary Commission.
I wonder whether this is a judicial process or whether we are deluding ourselves by imagining that some superhuman beings, however distinguished, can cloister themselves in London and then inspect different areas for the sake of appearances but otherwise amass a pile of maps and statistics about demographic figures of population and from that produce rational proposals. I deny that that is possible. There must be a community of interest. Not only must there be an aggregation of a certain group of approximately 75,000 people, which by some mysterious process has become the norm for the new areas; there must be a community of interests between the districts concerned.
Here are three rural districts—Parbold, Wrightington and Dalton—all bitterly objecting to the Boundary Commission's proposals and being completely ignored.
I have received support from other parts of Lancashire represented by the hon. Member for Ormskirk, from the Skelmersdale new town and from my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire), who is not present.
The Boundary Commission is stupidly and maladroitly lumping together a vast rural area of country villages, with Skelmersdale new town which already has a population of 40,000 souls. In the next few years it will achieve a population of 85,000. That is sufficient for it to form a unit on its own. The Skelmersdale new town, under any form of local government, will have sufficient growing pains to keep it busy for the next 10 or 15 years without having to take into consideration the needs of rural village life patterns, which are totally different from those of Skelmersdale, a rapidly developing new town.
I therefore plead with the Minister that if we are to retain faith in democracy, we must abolish the notion that however much the people living in the rural districts protest the machinery must have its way, we shall go through the motions and the people will receive what has been ordered for them.
This is a subject about which I raise my voice loudly tonight. I shall continue to protest. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw his orders and to provide us with sensible solutions and not try to rush them through the House like so much legislation which is being rushed through in this way.

12.3 a.m.

Mr. A. G. F. Hall-Davis: I cannot support this order. I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to withdraw it. It embodies a mistaken recommendation of the Royal Commission.
I have put forward at what is clearly the eleventh hour the simplest amendment and suggestions possible: that Morecambe borough should form a district on its own. I cannot see that any of the neighbouring authorities left in a district of 80,000 people could object to that suggestion.
My right hon. Friend referred to the guidelines to the commission. They laid down that the commission
should have particular regard to the wishes of the local inhabitants, the pattern of community life and the effective operation of local government services.
The unit which the commission is proposing for district No. 1 in Lancashire will lack the community of interest, both


social and economic, that is necessary if local democracy at district level is to function effectively and happily and attract the involvement of the electorate.
It is important when discussing these matters to try to secure a structure of local democracy that will work and enjoy respect and support. It is not that Morecambe and Lancaster are hostile to one another. There is little economic competition between them. This is because their economics are so different. It is this difference which makes the present proposals an impediment to local democracy and a potential danger to the jobs and prosperity of many of my Morecambe constituents.
It so happens that the economies and employment characteristics of Morecambe and Lancaster have recently been the subject of a most detailed and expert study. I refer to the study published earlier this year for the Water Resources Board by the Economic Study Group, running to several hundred pages. This shows that although Lancaster contains a univerisity and a major hospital complex, nevertheless its service employment is only marginally greater than that for Great Britain as a whole. There is no evidence of any employment in the tourist or holiday industry any greater than would be found in any other inland town of similar size in the country.
The picture for Morecambe and Heysham is totally different. The employment pattern in Morecambe is approximately three people employed in services to one in manufacturing industry. That is twice the average figure for Great Britain and three times the figure for the North-West region as a whole. The preliminary results of a research survey now being conducted show that 10,000 jobs in Morecambe—with a population of 40,000—depend on the holiday industry.
This brings me to the crux of my argument. Anyone familiar with holiday resorts here or abroad knows that they require special support from their local authority. Local authorities have to promote the name and reputation of the resort. They have to see that certain services are available on a scale far beyond what would be necessary just to provide for the resident population.
The scale on which these special services have to be provided in Morecambe and Heysham is shown in the study group report which revealed that at tile peak period there are 100,000 visitors in Morecambe—40,000 of them staying and being in number equal to the resident population—and 60,000 day visitors. They all require extra services and special provision. What concerns me is whether a district authority of which a holiday resort comprises only one-third will be prepared to devote the time and energy necessary to cater for these requirements, of which the other two-thirds has no equivalent, no experience, and from which it will derive no benefit. Will the ratepayers of the other two-thirds of the proposed No. 1 District be prepared to foot the bill? Is it right that they should be expected to do so? I am advised that the bill is of the order of £400,000 a year, or equivalent in Morecambe and Heysham to a poundage of 23p. If they are not prepared to go on footing the bill, what will happen over the years to many of those 10,000 jobs in Morecambe?
For Morecambe to become a minority element in a district with different characteristics could be damagingly decisive for its future prosperity. If the Bay barrage goes ahead the future of the holiday industry is assured. If it does not, and the matter is still in the balance, the Morecambe holiday industry will need the whole-hearted support of the district council of which it forms a part. If there were any doubt in the commission's mind—and it recognised the merits in Morecambe's submissions—the benefit of the doubt should have been given to Morecambe and two districts created. The effects on the other districts can at best be only marginal, whereas the effect of Morecambe could be extremely damaging and irreparable.

12.10 a.m.

Mr. James Johnson: I have never heard so many charming apologies for short speeches as I have heard tonight. I wish, however, to join in the universal criticism against a system which gives us only an hour and a half to discuss this most important matter. It is damnable—and I use that word advisedly—that we should have only this brief period of time. It is an insult to hon. Members in this House and, indeed, is an insult to people outside. Many


thousands of local authorities are watching what is happeing in the House tonight. They also will feel that it is almost impossible to attempt to discuss this matter within such a short time-span.
I am in an unusual position. I am a Northumberland man and in this debate I speak not for Hull but as a junior burgess of Scunthorpe. I know the feelings of the people of Scunthorpe and of the city council on whose behalf I have the honour to speak. Perhaps it will help if I quote a couple of sentences from a letter I have received from Mr. Alec Moore, who gave evidence to the Boundary Commission on behalf of the Scunthorpe Town Council.
The whole issue relates to whether the extension of the Anchor steel site, which is just over the eastern boundary of the borough of Scunthorpe, should be included in the new district No. 6 of Lincolnshire. Mr. Moore said in his letter:
When the members of the Boundary Commission came up here, I was asked to put the case for the Anchor site to be included in the borough boundary. … As you will be aware, the Commission has stated that it considered that 'there was a strong case for the inclusion of the whole site in a district with Scunthorpe' … The Commission further stated that they recognised that it was difficult to describe a suitable boundary. In heaven's name, why? Half an hour with the British Steel Corporation, at either local or national level, would have enabled them to draw an appropriate line.
The council gave the commission maps containing four separate lines. In the least generous of these to the town of Scunthorpe, which would have included all the extension of the Anchor steel site, there is only one small cottage which is now in district No. 7, formerly the old rural district council of Brigg. This is the absurdity of the commission's decision.
I have already told the Minister that this will include the whole of the new Anchor site development and also any additional works which are to come. We must bear in mind that the site for BSC purposes involves 2,500 acres. This will make no material impact on the viability of the neighbouring council—indeed, it will amount to a bonanza. The financial implications are well known.
The BSC scheme began in 1970 and is due for completion at the end of 1972.

The scheme is to be "in Scunthorpe" rather than "near Scunthorpe"—in other words, not in North Lincolnshire but in Scunthorpe. Indeed, the whole of the development of the Anchor site and the entire negotiations between the BSC, and even before the days of the BSC, and the local people have been carried out completely within Scunthorpe and by the borough of Scunthorpe. The whole thing is completely self-contained. Therefore we are completely flabbergasted that this small area contiguous to the east side of the city has not been included. This has happened even after the spirited protest in which the borough council sent a delegation to London. I need not say that it is the most sophisticated steel plant in Europe. It is awe-inspiring and it is completly linked with the town.
I recognise that tonight there is no chance of making an amendment to the provisions of the order. It was puerile of the Minister to suggest that the order was not opposed because there were not thousands of amendments on the Order Paper. He knows that that is purely a debating point and one which is not worthy of him. Why, therefore, will not the Minister withdraw the proposal? Is it impossible for him to do what we in Scunthorpe and what people in many other towns want? Failing this I hope that the Boundary Commission will work live a beaver from New Year's morning until All Fools Day in 1974 so that if and when the time comes to make amendments we shall have something we can work with and work upon.

12.17 a.m.

Miss Mervyn Pike: I shall be as brief as possible. I wish to draw the Minister's attention to Part 24 of the schedule dealing with the county of Leicestershire.
On the whole, the revised recommendation for the county resulted in an almost ideal pattern. After the consultations on the May recommendations we were left with a pattern which gave us the best possible form of democratic Government. We have an ideal pattern of the marriage of town and country by the inclusion of the Leicester County Borough. We have seven district councils varying from 75,000 plus down to 27,000, plus each of which is a complete unit in itself with a good rural, urban and suburban blend.


This makes two districts of about 30,000 population, two districts of over 50,000 population, three districts of around 70,000, and the Leicester County Borough of 283,000, cohesive, well-established units, all of them good district units providing good democratic local government for the people concerned.
Then, quite incongruously, we have one unwieldy, incompatible district composed of the Borough of Loughborough, the urban district of Shepshed and the rural district of Barrow upon Soar. It is a district of 126,000, with an ill-assorted population, lacking all community of interest.
When the first recommendations were published for Leicestershire, giving Leicestershire a variety of large authorities, the local government of Barrow on Soar and of Loughborough decided to set up a working party to work out how they could best get together and prepare the way for the new authority. They tried to be as cooperative as possible in the light of the recommendations which were made. But these meetings, which were entered into seriously for the purpose of finding a common unity of interest, have revealed that there is a great and fundamental difference between the two authorities.
Our opposition to the proposals is not based on the emotion of not wanting change or on the fact that other districts in the county have got what they want. It is based upon an assessment of the hard facts that here in this area, the largest outside the county borough of Leicester but within the county is a wholly incompatible district. There is agreement among all parties in the district that this is not in the best interests of local government. The Loughborough borough wishes to stand alone together with the Shepshed urban district. The Leicestershire County Council backs the proposal. The Barrow upon Soar Rural District Council naturally wishes to remain as it is, one of the largest districts in the area by all the considerations of rateable value, acreage and population. All the political parties, the parish councillors and the residents all wish that the two districts should be divided so that there will be two compatible districts. It is not an emotional argument

but one based upon hard facts. The Loughborough borough and Shepshed RDC should form one district of 54,000 population plus and the Barrow upon Soar RDC should form one district of 71,000 plus, thus making 10 districts for Leicestershire.
We are proposing that we should have in Leicestershire what would amount to just about the ideal pattern of local government. We would have four districts of around 70,000, three districts of about 50,000, two districts of about 30,000 and one large country borough of nearly 300,000. That would provide an ideal pattern for Leicestershire. Each district would be a cohesive unit which would reflect the interests of urban, suburban and country districts. Each unit would be viable and would give good democratic local government to the people concerned.
I want to be constructive and as quick as I possibly can. I will confine my arguments to the advantages of the Barrow upon Soar RDC being a district on its own. I know that if the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) could have been here he would have put forward the constructive argument for the Loughborough and Shepshed districts being units on their own. If the Barrow upon Soar RDC is a district on its own, it will still be one of the largest in the county by any criterion. It is already a well-established local authority with full delegated powers. It is highly efficient and forward looking. It is a diverse area but it is a focal point in the area. If the area were broken up and added to Loughborough it would mean that instead of having two well defined areas, one in Loughborough and one in Barrow upon Soar, with their own offices and officers, we would have another office in another place which would break up the two units, with all the extra expense, extra officials, extra work and extra dislocation. It would mean an extra centre of government in an unwieldly and over-large area.
In the Barrow upon Soar area there is a population of over 71,000. It is a geographical unit with a community of interest. It looks to Leicester, as it has always done and will continue to do, because of the traditional interests along the Soar Valley and the A6. The road network makes the location the most convenient for communications throughout the district.
There are at present 32 parishes in the rural district which all have close links with the present authority. The greatest problem in an area of this kind is the retention of public/member contact.
At present the Barrow upon Soar RDC has 71 members. In the proposed amalgamation the 71 members would be reduced to 33. It is proposed that one new ward will have one member and will comprise five existing parishes which now return seven members. The new ward would cover 9,500 acres, which is far bigger than Loughborough at present, twice as big as Shepshed UDC and twice as big as District 7, Wigston and Oadby. If Barrow upon Soar is separated it could have a membership of 45 or 50, which would give it proper democratic representation.
District 2, as it now stands in the order, would be an overgrown, incompatible, bureaucratic nightmare smashing up two efficient authorities to produce one which could not adequately reflect the impossibly wide diversity in the area. District 2, if it were divided as we suggest, would truly reflect all the guiding principles laid down by the Minister for the creation of good local government. Barrow upon Soar as a district would continue to be one of the largest, best-established and most efficient in the county. It would meet all the guide lines laid down. If I had time I would quote the guide lines and show how in each case the order as it stands does not meet them, whereas if it were divided into the districts all the guide lines would be met.
The Minister has had all these arguments. He has been courteous enough to discuss them with me fully. I will not waste the time of the House by going through the order paragraph by paragraph. I had intended, given time, to show how with a divided district every-body within the district and all the authorities would be better placed. The districts should be as I suggest, so that in Leicestershire we have a compatible pattern, with districts reflecting the interests of the community, all of them able to have a good democratic representation throughout the county as a whole, all of them properly balanced in a proper pattern, with districts set at about 70,000, 50,000 and 30,000 and this one over-wieldy, over-large district in-

stead of this distorted pattern of local representation.
The Minister knows this question well. I ask him to reconsider the matter. We in Leicestershire are proud of our pattern of local government. We are glad that the Boundary Commission listened to most of the views on the ground. The only views it did not listen to were those of Barrow upon Soar. When the Boundary Commission came to Leicestershire and listened to parish interests, it produced an ideal pattern of local government. In this one instance where the Boundary Commission would not listen to the views of the local people and to parish councils it has produced a pattern which is not only a complete nonsense but an abnegation of good local government.

Mr. Graham Pave: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is evident from the number of right hon. and hon. Members who have risen to speak that when we reach one o'clock we shall not have finished the debate. It is within your power to extend the debate on another day. In view of the number of Members who have risen, would you be inclined to do that? Right hon. and hon. Members could better order their speeches and would not have to gabble them so much in an effort to make their points. We should have a better debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): It would not be proper for me to make known how I shall exercise my discretion until it comes to one o'clock, but it would be right for me to indicate to the House now that I am entirely sympathetic to the Minister's point. It might therefore be in the interests of the House were I to extend that sympathy in the proper way when one o'clock comes.

12.28 a.m.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: We cannot, of course, debate the amendment on the Order Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Hall-Davis), for the simple reason that it is, and always has been, out of order. However, I wish strongly to oppose what has been said by my hon. Friend to corn-mend to the House the Local Government Boundary Commission's recommendation for the district council which


includes the constituency which I have the honour to represent.
May I say in passing, without wishing to be lynched by other Lancashire Members, that it is highly appropriate that the district containing the county town should be the No. 1 district of Lancashire.
The report recommends a balanced area of town, country and seaside, with an ideal population of 123,000, a rateable value of £5 million, and a penny rate yield of £48,000. It would be an area sufficiently large and rich to carry out efficiently the duties laid upon it. The local authorities which the Boundary Commission proposes to amalgamate are Lancaster city, Morecambe, Carnforth urban district, Lunesdale rural district and Lancaster rural district. Of these five authorities, four—Lancaster city, Carnforth, Lunesdale rural district and Lancaster rural district—are in favour of the commission's proposals, very strongly in favour, as the Minister heard when he was kind enough to speak to them at his office in London.
Only one authority, Morecambe, is against it. But the crucial point is that whereas the four authorities in favour of the Boundary Commission's proposals were unanimous within themselves, there was, no doubt disguised by my hon. Friend, a very bitter split on the Morecambe Council on its own proposals, the voting in favour being only 17–9. One Morecambe councillor described Morecambe's alternative for a coastal strip as
a Fantasia in the best Disneyland tradition
Is that the local respect and support to which my hon. Friend referred?
Another Morecambe councillor warmly welcomed the commission's proposals in these words:
I think this is the best possible thing. I think it will work very well in all ways—industry, tourism and everything else—and I feel that Morecambe will have a wonderful future in the five.
Not only was the Morecambe Council split on the merits of the proposed coastal strip but two of all Morecambe's largest organisations were similarly split. The Chamber of Trade, which presumably wants Morecambe to remain prosperous, voted no fewer than 15 to 2 against Morecambe's own proposals and

in favour of the Boundary Commission's proposals, which were also backed by the Hotels and Caterers Association, which one would think is interested in tourism, and by the Ratepayers Association. Even the former Town Clerk, Mr. Roger Rose, stated publicly that he believes that the amalgamation of the five authorities is in the best interests of Morecambe. My hon. Friends seems to be getting into a more minute minority as time goes by.
Moreover, Morecambe's proposal for a coastal strip has twice been considered and twice rejected by the Boundary Commission. It envisages seizing the wealthiest part of Lancaster RDC, and taking six-sevenths of its rateable value but only one-third of its acreage. The Lancaster RDC is unanimously and bitterly opposed to Morecambe's proposals, as is Carnforth, which would be similarly taken over.
My hon. Friend has made great play of the position of Morecambe as a seaside resort and the alleged danger of its being associated with an industrial town. If that danger exists, I fail to see why Morecambe Chamber of Trade and the Hotels and Caterers Association should support the Boundary Commission's suggested for amalgamation with Lancaster. Many seaside resorts have found great benefit from marrying their seaside activities with an industrial town. Yarmouth is one example. Another is Southsea, which does not appear to have suffered as a seaside resort from becoming part of Portsmouth.
Even more important, Lancaster has just been offered a category "A" tourist centre, and will be in a position to do a great deal for the tourist industry of Morecambe. Indeed, Morecambe's position will be strengthened by becoming part of the larger area of District No. 1. Its present vulnerable situation is shown by the recent Census figures, which show that Morecambe and Heysham had only 17 per cent. of its population under 15 years of age, compared with the average of 25 per cent. in the county as a whole. At the other end of the scale, the Morecambe and Heysham male population aged 65 and over was 21 per cent., compared with 9·9 per cent. in the rest of the county. The female population aged 60 years and over was 39 per cent., compared with 22·1 per cent. in the rest of the county.
Moreover, the Morecambe proposal ignores the fact that the area embraced in District No. 1 is already a close-knit area, with many services already being operated on a joint basis, and that the pattern of travel throughout the area for work is clearly established. The last survey on places of work and places of residence shows that 3,600 people living in Morecambe work in Lancaster, and the traffic is also the other way.
All in all, the overwhelming balance of advantage for all concerned is on the side of the Boundary Commission's proposals, and I beg the House to accept them as they stand.

12.35 a.m.

Mr. Denis Howell: I intervene only to draw attention to the impossible position in which the House, no doubt inadvertently, has placed itself, and to support the representations which the Minister made to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although I appreciate that the matter is entirely within your province. Many times during the passage of the Local Government Act we spoke of the weight of legislation contained in that one measure. Tonight, the House is attempting in this order to define the boundaries of every local authority in England in the space of one-and-a-half hours.
We are in grave danger of local government democracy being brought into contempt by our procedures. Every local authority that wishes to make known its objections to the proposals contained in the statutory instrument has an absolute right to do so. Even more important is the right of the local authorities to have a reasoned reply to their objections from the Government. I have a great deal of sympathy for the Minister in his task on another day if the suggested course of action is followed. Not only is there a danger of local government democracy being brought into contempt, but our parliamentary democracy will be brought into contempt by a failure to provide opportunities for objections to be heard.
I have been sitting here, disinterestedly on this occasion, listening to the contributions. Hon. Members have all been expressing the real concern of a large number of their constituents and hardly a

minute has been wasted. Even if the statutory instrument is debated for one-and-a-half hours on another day, I do not see how all the objections can be made and, even more important, how the Minister can possibly reply adequately to them in the time available to him. It is important that he should be able to do so and, therefore, although the situation is unprecedented, I support the Minister's application.

12.38 a.m.

Mr. William Clark: I regret that this debate has come on at this late hour, and I further regret that in discussing three orders tonight we seem to have taken the most controversial one last.
I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing is handling the debate. When he was a back bencher he was the champion of the small local authorities, and I am sure that if we push our point sufficiently he will see the fallacy of the Government accepting the Boundary Commission recommendations in total without any amendment.
My right hon. Friend said that 84 per cent. of all the districts were quite happy. This may be so, but as a Conservative I worry about the 16 per cent. who are not happy. It is no argument to say that because 84 per cent. are happy we can steamroller the order through and forget the 16 per cent.
I have a local interest. Together with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot), who unfortunately cannot be here because he is at the United Nations on parliamentary business, I tabled an amendment trying to exclude Banstead from the proposed marriage with Reigate.
My right hon. Friend will recollect that Banstead has put up a very strong case. At this hour, I shall not rehearse the various arguments. But neither the Boundary Commission nor the Department of the Environment has ever suggested that there is any inefficiency in Banstead. It is an extremely well run local authority.
The guidelines speak of a population of 40,000 upwards. Banstead has a population of 45,000. It is proposed that there shall be a marriage between Banstead and Reigate. However, my right hon.


Friend has made a decision about Horley. This is one alteration to the proposals of the Boundary Commission which has been accepted. Horley, with its population of 19,000, will no doubt join with Reigate. This one decision has put in jeopardy the district that my right hon. Friend has in the order. I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear in mind the arithmetic in his guidelines. When Horley is extended and joins with Reigate, the Reigate—Horley—Banstead district will have a population of more than 140,000, which is way outside the guidelines.
One of the matters worrying Banstead is that, with that sort of area and with an escarpment between Banstead and the rest of the district, Banstead will be the back garden of the new district. It adjoins London, and I do not think that my right hon. Friend has really explained away the remarks of my noble Friend the Lord Sandford when their Lordships were discussing the order. The inference from Lord Sandford's comments was that he wanted strong local authorities around London. Is the reason for that the fear that the GLC may again extend its tentacles and claw in a weak authority? That must be the inference, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will explain a little more clearly what the noble Lord meant.
The noble Lord also drew attention to the guideline which refers to the need for powerful units of local government around London. That was not contained in Circular 58/71 which was sent to all local authorities. Therefore, the Boundary Commission must have decided this arbitrarily, and I can assure my right hon. Friend that there was no discussion on this change in the guidelines with Banstead, Reigate, Esher and the rest of them. This is a point which must be hammered home in this argument about local authorities. There has been a lack of consultation. In the case of Banstead, no one from the Boundary Commission even visited the area. I suggest that that is bureaucratic arrogance. To have someone sitting in an office and not looking at the geographical situation or the topography of an area but merely taking a piece of paper, a compass and a pencil and joining areas together is not what we in the Conserva-

tive Party think local government is about. It is people sitting in ivory towers, not knowing the area, and amalgamating areas merely to be tidy on paper.
If Lord Sandford was worried that the GLC would take over any weak district on the border of London, this put the Boundary Commission in difficulty, because it accepted this guideline. If the GLC ever wanted to extend its area and it was put to the Boundary Commission, I suggest that the Boundary Commission would have prejudiced its future integrity in this matter.
I will not rehearse all the arguments why Banstead should not join Reigate and vice versa. However, I should point out that the police force for Banstead comes under the Metropolitan Police whereas Reigate comes under the Surrey police force, and the water authorities and the drainage authorities are different. What a nonsense, when we are trying to get administrative streamlining, that we should have to deal with two police forces, two water authorities and two drainage authorities. That in itself should prompt my right hon. Friend at least to have another look at the matter. If local government is to be local, it is essential that we amalgamate areas that have localties.
During the commission's deliberations Banstead was given two months in which to test public opinion. How can one within two months test public opinion? However, Banstead was extremely keen and within four weeks collected 12,000 signatures. It is estimated that had there been more time 22,000 signatures would have been collected. That is not a bad percentage when we consider that the electorate there is 32,000. It is, in fact, a 66 per cent. poll.
Banstead has no argument with Reigate. I am sure that my right hon. Friend has noted that my noble Friend Lord Brooke, with all his experience of local government as Minister for Housing and Local Government, as it was, in another place said that Banstead has a case. I think that the Government, under this order, are condemning an efficient local authority to a shot-gun wedding between a reluctant bride and and even more reluctant bridegroom. I urge my right hon. Friend to think again on the matter. It is ludicrous that this


House, despite the shortness of time, should have to accept in totality all the recommendations of the Boundary Commission and not take notice of the representations of the local authorities or of the Members of Parliament who represent them.
We must give more comfort to local authorities throughout the country by proving to them that their representations are not just taken as representations and filed away but are taken notice of.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will exclude Banstead and these other areas which, for different reasons, should not he in the new authorities.

12.48 a.m.

Mr. Carol Mather: It is extremely difficult in the short time available to get in all I need to say on behalf of three local authorities—Esher, Walton and Weybridge, and Sunbury, which is a local district within the area of my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Humphrey Atkins) which is involved in this same matter.
Briefly, these are three independent local authorities which now stand on their own. The proposals of the Boundary Commission are that Esher and Walton and Weybridge should amalgamate, which they do not want to do—Esher wants to remain independent—and that Sunbury-on-Thames should amalgamate with Staines, which Sunbury does not want to do. Instead, a perfectly viable alternative has been proposed whereby Walton and Weybridge will amalgamate with Sunbury, and Esher will stand on its own.
Esher is an extremely viable local district on its own. It has sufficient population—64,000 rising to 71,000 in nine years—one of the largest rateable values in the country for a district authority of £4·4 million, and an adequate size of 23 square miles.
I am not criticising the reasons why this recommendation was made. What I am criticising is the way in which it was done. It seems to me that the way in which districts were reorganised was without precedent. On the last occasion, under the Local Government Act 1929, the counties were empowered to review their districts and there was provision for a public local inquiry. On this occasion there was no such provision. There was no provision for any hearing

at all before the Boundary Commission if, as in this case, it was unwilling to meet these local councils.
Secondly, the English counties and the metropolitan districts have had their changes made under an Act of Parliament, with all the procedures that are open under it, and the Welsh counties and districts have been dealt with under the same procedure. That has not been done with the English non-metropolitan districts. The whole thing has been done by subordinate legislation, and we have seen tonight the situation into which that has brought us.
Esher Council made its representations and put forward a strong case to the commission on 16th June. At the same time it asked for a meeting with the commission. That request was ignored. In fact, the letter was not even replied to. All that the council received was an acknowledgement card from the commission and I submit that, at the least, this is an extraordinary way in which to treat an authority of this kind. It has caused great aggravation to the Esher Council, which cannot understand why it was treated in this way.
A further request for a meeting, this time to the Secretary of State, was also refused. In all fairness I must tell the House that rather late in the day—about three weeks ago—I was able to meet my right hon. Friend privately with representatives from these councils, but there was no hearing at all by the commission itself.
I think that what has happened ill accords with the guideline statement that the fullest practical consultation should take place. There were no consultations, and I do not believe that this is in the spirit of the White Paper.
On the question of the missing guideline about which we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. William Clark), perhaps I may remind the House of what my noble Friend Lord Sandford said in the other place:
but this was one of the guidelines—and I submit it was a correct guideline—that around a great metropolitan area like London there should be powerful units of local government at the district level. If you accept that guideline, then it was right for the Boundary Commisson to stand firm over a number of places such as Esher, Banstead and others we have heard of."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 12th December 1972; Vol. 337, c. 545.]


No such guideline was published. It is not in any of the documents concerned. It is not in the Department's Circular 58/71. It is not in the letter of 25th April. I submit that it is no explanation for my right hon. Friend to say that the noble Lord was reading more into his words than he intended. Was this guideline issued to the Boundary Commission, or was it not? I hope that my right hon. Friend will give a clear answer to that.

Mr. Graham Page: I have already denied that there was any such guideline. What I said was not that my noble Friend had read something into the words that he used, but that a newspaper had read into his words something that he did not intend.

Mr. Mather: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's reply, but I read out exactly what was said, that this was a guideline. I am glad to know that it is important for authorities around London to stand firm; this will prove a useful hostage to fortune in future.
Therefore, in the final report of the Boundary Commission no reference at all was made to the public response in the Esher area, although other areas in which there had been public response were mentioned. But the Esher councils sent letters from 16 residents' associations and from seven out of the nine wards in the district, with a population of 64,000. This is a substantial public response, which should have been noted in the report.
I believe that the three local councils are justified in feeling aggrieved. Lord Brooke, who, my hon. Friend said, has great experience in these matters, said in the other place that, whatever the grounds for these recommendations, they "entirely flouted" the wishes of the existing local authorities. Coming from a man like that, that is something which my hon. Friend should note.
We have been put in an impossible position tonight. We can do nothing about the order except throw it out in toto, and wreck the whole of the reorganisation of local government. It is absolutely impossible to amend, or suggest any changes to, the recommendations.
We should not be put in this position. My right hon. Friend has been put in a difficult position, too, but surely he must

agree that an injustice has been done, not only in my case but in the case of many other hon. Members, and that the method of procedure has left a great deal to be desired. I hope that, whatever conclusions he reaches and whatever action he decides to take, this will at least be an object lesson for the future.

12.58 a.m.

Sir George Sinclair: A great number of people in my constituency have reason to be grateful to the Minister for the decision he took to bear in mind the wishes of the people of Horley parish and to give a chance to the people of Charlwood parish to decide whether or not to remain in Surrey. The people of Horley have decided to remain in Surrey, and the Minister has pledged to put them back into Surrey, in spite of the fact that the order would seem to transfer them to West Sussex.
Charlwood still has to make up its mind, once the Minister has made up his mind about the boundaries of the airport. We are grateful for that decision, but the people are placed in a really hopeless dilemma. They are now facing the prospect of having to elect to councils in West Sussex—that is, District No. 1 in Part 36 of the Schedule—people who in a short time will have no part in, and do not wish to be associated by any means with, the county of West Sussex. In the meantime, they will be excluded from elections to the district authorities to which they will ultimately belong. This is a very difficult period for the people in this area, and I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister, who has agreed to find procedures by which—

It being one and half hours after the commencement of Proceedings on the Motion, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER, being of opinion that because of the importance of the subject matter of the Motion the time for debate had not been adequate, interrupted the business, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have now exercised the discretion given to the Chair by Standing Order No. 3, to which I have already referred. The debate will stand adjourned until the next sitting.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We should all like to thank


you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for taking that decision, which is within your discretion, but would it be possible for the Leader of the House to say at what hour and on what day the debate will be resumed? There has been considerable criticism tonight, with which I wholly concur, that to debate such an important matter so late at night and so near the end of the Session is not relevant. To do so, perhaps, tomorrow night would surely only make matters worse.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair. I should like to repeat my last sentence. The debate stands adjourned until the next sitting.

Mr. J. T. Price: With great respect to your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which of course I accept, is it not the case that to announce the business for the next day less than 24 hours before that sitting is entirely out of order and is ultra vires the Standing Orders?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What I have said is laid down in a Standing Order. It is not within my discretion to alter the Standing Orders.

Mr. Thorpe: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it be in order to ask, through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether we might expect a statement now from either the Patronage Secretary or the Leader of the House?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. James Prior): Further to that point of order, which appears not to have been a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have listened to what has been said. I should have thought that it would be for the convenience of the House if we took this as the first order after 10 p.m. tomorrow. We obviously cannot take it before then because of the Coal Industry Bill, but it should come on straight away at 10 p.m. For the convenience of the House, I think that that is as much as we can arrange at this stage.

Mr. Thorpe: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that this presents certain administrative inconvenience? Those hon. Members who

have spoken will feel that they would wish to be present for the wind-up speech as a matter of courtesy and, indeed, in order to elicit information. That means that every hon. Member who has spoken and every hon. Member who still wishes to speak must at 24 hours' notice take a decision which has been forced on him because of the fact that the Government saw fit to introduce at a late hour, in one and a half hours, matters affecting vitally important boundary decisions, and then, because they have messed it up, they expect everyone to return at 24 hours' notice.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not seek to pursue that which was not initially or since a point of order.

Mr. Thorpe: I was not seeking to make a point of order. I was hoping that I was in order to ask—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Please do not make it more difficult for the Chair.

Mr. Kirk: Surely the position that we are in is that the Leader of the House has just made what is, in effect, a Business Statement and we are entitled, as we always can when he makes a Business Statement, to question him and to criticise the statement.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair has allowed a certain amount of indulgence, perhaps foolishly. I hope that advantage will not be taken of that.

Mr. Kirk: I have no desire to take advantage of anything, but the fact is that we have got into difficulties. We shall be in even greater difficulty tomorrow if the course proposed by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is pursued.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not proper to pursue those difficulties now.

Mr. Prior: We had hoped, and had reasonably expected, that the debate would begin at an early hour. I apologise to the House for the fact that it did not. In the circumstances, all that we can do is to resume at 10 p.m. tomorrow. I hope that that will not cause undue inconvenience to those hon. Members who will have to stay tomorrow night in order


to listen to my right hon. Friend's reply, but in the circumstances I cannot suggest any other course.

Debate to be resumed this day.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY SECONDARY LEGISLATION

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [19th December].

That a Select Committee be appointed to consider procedures for scrutiny of proposals for European Community Secondary Legislation and to make recommendations.—[Mr. Prior.]

Debate to be resumed this day.

PROCEDURE

Ordered,
That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the Procedure in the Public Business of the House; and to report what alterations, if any, are desirable for the more efficient despatch of such Business.
And the Committee was nominated of Mr. Austen Albu, Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby, Mr. Michael Hamilton, Mr. John Loveridge, Mr. John P. Mackintosh, Mr. David Marquand, Mr. Angus Maude, Mr. John Parker, Sir Robin Turton, and Dame Irene Ward.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; and to report from time to time.

Ordered,
That Four be the Quorum of the Committee.

Ordered,
That the Minutes of the Evidence taken before the Select Committee on Procedure and reported by them to the House on 26th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be referred to the Committee.—[Mr. John Stradling Thomas.]

NATIONAL THEATRE AND MUSEUM OF LONDON BILL

Resolved,
That, in pursuance of the Parliament Act 1911, this House directs that the provisions of section 1(1) of that Act shall not apply to the National Theatre and Museum of London Bill.—[Mr. Prior.]

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John Stradling Thomas.]

COMMON GRAVES

1.5 a.m.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: I welcome and appreciate the opportunity to raise the subect of paupers' graves. It is perhaps not inappropriate, when the Christian world awaits the annual celebration of Christ's birth, that we should turn our minds momentarily to the manner in which literally thousands of our people are buried in communal, unmarked, euphemistically-termed public common subscription graves—in fact, and in practice, paupers' graves.
Paupers' graves are a wretched, sad business. They are graves to which we as a society resign too many of the impoverished, the mentally and physically handicapped, and those born before a qualifying date for the National Health Insurance scheme, all of whom in so many cases have no insurance records and are, therefore, not entitled to the National Insurance £30 full benefit grant.
I seek to urge the Minister to make the death benefit grant generally available irrespective of the insurance record of the individual concerned. The tragedy is that so many of these people have been afforded little dignity in life and receive even less when they cast off their mortal coil.
While I make no imputations against the manner in which these funerals are arranged, hon. Members will, no doubt, be aware that in 1968 the National Association of Funeral Directors produced a suggested specification for public authority funerals, presumably intended both for hospital and for local authority funerals, under Section 50 of the National Assistance Act, which specifically excludes any what might be termed "extras" of this kind, thus distinguishing public from private funerals in the most visible way.
Commending this specification to the NAFD annual conference in June 1968, Mr. L. E. Stringer, chairman of the committee which produced it, said:
We hope that the local authority funeral will be adopted as a reasonably standard type of funeral to differentiate entirely between the type that is supplied by a local authority


and that which is supplied by Members of our Association. My personal view"—
let me emphasise that—
is that I think it extremely dangerous to bring this local authority funeral within any measurable distance of even a simple funeral, otherwise there is a chance, in time to come, of further municipalisation.
That was the comment of Mr. Stringer.
I do not want to make too much of that point because I accept that there is little evidence that funeral directors depart from their generally high standards in arranging these funerals. What I find particularly objectionable is the communal graves' aspect of these funerals and the anonymity of the graves.
On the communal graves' aspect, I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money) in his place because, provided he has the opportunity of catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will make reference to very disquieting reports of communal graves as concerns new-born children.
So far as paupers' public or common graves are concerned, as many as eight coffins are placed in a single grave. Then the grave is merely grassed over with no indication as to who is interred within.
One might ask: Does it matter? Ought we not to get on with dealing with the problems of the living rather than concern ourselves with the dead? Ought we not to accept the philosophy expressed in that jingle which I heard as a boy:
Rattle his bones across the stones,
He's only a pauper whom nobody owns."?
It is because I reject such arguments and philosophies that I urge the Minister to examine this sad, wretched business. If I needed any support for my view, it is contained in this bulging file of letters. Perhaps the House will allow me to quote from but a few.
An elderly lady born in October 1887, anxious about her own ineligibility for the death benefit grant, writes:
As my flat is opposite a cemetery looking out of my window, I feel furious at times when I think of the life so many of these people have had, many the salt of the earth and in that position through no fault of their own, to have such an indignity thrust upon them.
Then there is the letter I received from a gentleman resident in Surrey who writes:

In this village a few years ago there died a woman of 50 who had never been able to work owing to having suffered a certain amount of brain damage in infancy. As she had never worked and had never received any income she had no National Health Insurance record. I was informed that as she had never paid a NHS stamp she was not entitled to any death grant.
Then there is the correspondent from Berkshire who writes about a spinster born in 1886 who was 62 years of age at the changeover to the National Health Service scheme in July 1948 and who, therefore, again regrettably, does not qualify for the death benefit grant.
To conclude, may I remind the Minister that to many people, particularly elderly people, this subject is extremely sensitive. It is one that gives rise to appreciable anxiety and fear. In my part of the country the fears of many old people have been removed with the introduction of the Welfare State, but there are still anxieties and fears about this problem. May I urge the Minister to make his contribution to relieve these anxieties and fears and give this issue the serious consideration which it so obviously merits.

1.15 a.m.

Mr. Ernie Money: The hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Charles R. Morris) has been right to raise this matter, and he has done so most movingly and with considerable moderation. I am grateful for the opportunity to intervene briefly.
There are many matters concerning the burial of those who are on small incomes which still cause concern. The question of the increase in the Parochial Fees Measure this year is one, and the whole system of the payment of death grant in certain circumstances to the next-of-kin rather than to the funeral director is another source of concern to the elderly. As the hon. Member said, there is one specific matter which I would seek to draw to the attention of my hon. Friend, and that is the situation applying to stillborn babies who are too young, in the sense of being pre-natal, to qualify for a death grant.
I was peculiarly shocked by an account which appeared in the East Anglian Daily Times on 21st November 1972 dealing with the remarks made by the parents of a stillborn child about


the circumstances in which they had visited their son's grave. The father said:
in the grave there could be about 15 burials before it is filled in.
The article continued:
He protested that boards which cover the grave 'move' and the green imitation grass placed on top of the boards is faded and ' should have been thrown away years ago'.
The father said:
The parents can lift up the covering—that is if the wind has not already blown it half off—and see the open grave.
He added that people could then look into the grave:
and know that your child's coffin is only covered by falling earth, some of which has been washed in by the rain. … To us it is the mass burial of human beings. If it were animals suffering from diseases or pets the authority concerned would ensure that their grave was completely covered.
The reply of the superintendent of the Ipswich Cemetery—I make no complaint of the otherwise admirable service which the municipal authorities supply there in many ways—was simply this:
We dig a normal size grave and after they are buried they are covered up with earth but we do not fill the grave right up to the top. We ensure that the coffins are covered up so that all that people see is earth. It has been a system which has been in operation for over 20 years. It is not inhuman at all. … I should think in this grave there would be 20 stillborns.
I ask my hon. Friend to look at this carefully. Although all of us are aware that there is a long tradition here, not flattering to humanity, in that Mozart and many others of our greatest people went to a pauper's grave, in an age when we now feel, proudly, that perhaps we are living in more civilised circumstances this is a situation which hits hardest at those who are least able to do much to protect themselves.

1.20 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Alison): I should like to begin by congratulating, the hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Charles R. Morris) on the fluent and heartfelt style in which he addressed the House on this sadly unseasonable topic as we approach the period of festivity, birth and new life.
I should like, first of all, to question the title of this debate, as given on the Order Paper. There is no such thing as

a pauper's grave. This was an expression under the old Poor Law, now long since superseded. We are talking of common graves, by which we mean graves in which no exclusive right of burial has been purchased.
Having said this, I should begin with an explanation of the powers under which burial by statutory authorities may be arranged. Under Section 50 of the National Assistance Act 1948 local sanitary authorities—borough and district councils—have a duty to arrange the burial or cremation of any person who has died in their area in any case where no other arrangements for the burial of the body have been made or are being made. Hospital authorities have power, as occupiers of premises in which a person has died, to arrange and pay for burial or cremation of patients dying in hospital, but the local authority's duty under the National Assistance Act overrides this.
The Secretary of State has authorised hospital authorities to arrange and pay for the burial or cremation of patients who die in National Health Service hospitals where for various reasons arrangements cannot be made by their relatives. There are a wide variety of cases in which this can occur. They have also been asked to do so where either relatives cannot be traced—for example, in the case of patients in long-stay mental hospitals—or where the relatives have been traced but are unable to obtain death grant and cannot otherwise afford to arrange burial.
There may be exceptional cases in which the relatives are unwilling to arrange for burial, although the hospital authority has reason to think they can afford to do so. Hospital authorities have, in these cases, been asked to call upon the responsible borough or district council, which is the authority in whose district the body lies, to carry out its duty to arrange burial under Section 50 of the 1948 Act. Most hospital authorities arrange with local funeral contractors for burials to take place in what are known as common graves.
I shall try to clear up one misunderstanding which still persists in some people's minds, who confuse these burials with burials in what were known as paupers' graves under the old Poor Law. But, as I have said, this notion is now


long-since outdated. The common graves of a municipal cemetery are merely those which have been set aside by a local authority from the plots for which individuals or families pay either for single or for family graves. Usually where hospital authorities arrange for burial, common graves are used unless there is a family grave or the deceased or his relatives have expressed a wish for a private grave for which they are willing to pay. Common graves may be in consecrated or unconsecrated ground, and burials there are carried out in the same way as those elsewhere.
A common grave, like many private graves, may accommodate more than one coffin. Indeed, a member of my own family has a site reserved in which there are three or four plots closely linked in geographical terms to where he in due course will be placed. Therefore, there is nothing unusual in the fact that private graves can contain more than one coffin. I understand that the general practice, depending on soil conditions and the cemetery proprietor's opinion of what is required, is such that graves are deep enough to take a few coffins, buried one on top of the other, and there may be requirements in byelaws or regulations about the depth of earth between each coffin.
Common graves are used not only to accommodate those who die destitute and without relatives, or without relatives who care, but those with relatives who want to make arrangements but are unable to afford, or do not wish to purchase, a private grave. Generally, such graves are not marked by the placing of a commemorative stone, but in most cases some simple mark of identification may be placed by the grave. So they are not totally anonymous. In each case a separate and individual burial service is carried out with no less dignity and no less respect for the deceased than with burials arranged privately.
There is no stigma in a municipal funeral. People whose funerals are arranged by local and hospital authorities could have been comfortably off. They were not necessarily poor. Often what necessitates a municipal funeral may be simply that they had no relatives. We know, alas, of millions of cases of elderly single householders in this country where there may be no relatives.

Mr. Morris: The file I have here is bulging with the anxieties expressed by elderly people. I am grateful to the Minister for the information which he is now giving. I hope, however, that he will direct his comments to the question of the £30 death grant.

Mr. Alison: I wish to elaborate on this aspect because some understanding of the context in which municipal burial takes place could be a factor in relieving the anxieties of some folk who are involved on the side of financial stringency. It may help them to be aware that common graves may merely contain the coffins of deceased folk for whom no sort of financial pressure existed but for whom other factors arose.
A memorandum, which has recently been revised, has been issued by my Department to hospital authorities containing guidance about the arrangements which should be made for the burial of patients and related matters. The memorandum asks authorities that they should consider cremation unless there is reason to suppose that the patient would have preferred otherwise or that the relatives do not wish this. It also includes advice about the arrangements to be made with the undertaker responsible for the funeral, on arranging transport in certain circumstances for a deceased patient who has died in a distant hospital to be buried in his home area, and on dealing with deceased patients' property. It also asks hospital authorities to keep under review their procedures to ensure that every assistance is given to relatives. We have no reason to suppose that authorities generally do not carry out their tasks otherwise than with consideration and understanding.
The hon. Member for Openshaw and the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) recently tabled Questions on the subject which were answered by my right hon. Friend. I believe that the Questions, as doubtless was this debate, were prompted by allegations which the hon. Member had received of "mass burials" at some psychiatric hospitals in the Manchester area and that the allegations had specifically mentioned Calderstones Hospital, near Blackburn. I have made inquiries, and I understand that the Manchester Corporation arranges about 300 funerals


under the National Assistance Act each year. About half are in respect of persons who have died in local authority residential accommodation or in their private homes, and half are in respect of patients who, having died in hospital, are buried under a special arrangement in which the corporation acts as agent for the hospital authority.
I am told that each burial is an individual one with a separate service for each person held in a chapel or at the graveside, or sometimes in a local church. The corporation will also arrange burial in a family grave, where there is one, or cremation if this was the deceased person's wish or the wish of the relatives. In some cases burial will be arranged in a private cemetery instead of a municipal cemetery if, for example, the deceased person was a Roman Catholic.
The funeral arrangements are made with selected local funeral contractors in Manchester through the local branch of the National Association of Funeral Directors. Burials in common graves conform to the local requirements in respect of the soil conditions and depth of earth between coffins. In Manchester the number of coffins accommodated in a grave, which varies between cemeteries, is between six and eight. I understand that funerals at Calderstones Hospital are usually by cremation and that this has been the position for some years. However, on the rare occasion when cremation does not take place burial usually takes place in the hospital's own cemetery in a single grave.
I hope, therefore, that what I have said has helped to allay any fear spread by the allegations that deceased hospital patients or other persons, whatever their circumstances and the circumstances of their relatives, are not given a proper burial, and that these are not carried out with the respect and dignity which is required. If the hon. Gentleman knows of any specific instance within the responsibility of my Department where a burial has not been carried out in a proper manner, I hope that he will inform me of the details so that I can make a full inquiry.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the death grant. My right hon. Friend recently wrote to him on one aspect of

the subject. The National Insurance death grant is a lump sum, normally of £30, paid on the death of an insured person or of the wife, husband or child of an insured person. There are also special arrangements to enable death grant to be paid on the insurance of a close relative in cases where the deceased was over the age of 19 but ever since reaching that age had suffered from physical or mental disability and so was unable to work and build up an adequate insurance record. That might have some relevance to the example which the hon. Gentleman gave about the lady who obviously had some sort of mental trouble before death.
Death grant is paid in respect of some 98 per cent. of deaths of men under the age of 89, and over 90 per cent. of deaths of women under 84. That is a total of about 525,000 grants a year. A large proportion of those who die now receive death grant. The hon. Gentleman asked why there should not be total coverage. The answer is the problem of priorities. In the Adjournment debate which the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) initiated last month, one of my colleagues, the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean), went into some detail about the question of priorities. The bald point which he made was that social security benefits of about £100 million a week are paid out and that resources must be concentrated, and they are not unlimited, on sustaining life for those whose hold on life may be tenuous.
As death grant was an entirely new benefit introduced under the National Insurance Act 1946, contributions towards the grant started only in 1948. Consequently persons over pension age on 5th July 1948 are not covered, and persons who were then within 10 years of pension age—that is to say, men now over 79 and women over 74—can qualify for death grant only at half rate. It is worth pointing out to the hon. Gentleman that the conditions which have to be satisfied in the case of death grants are significantly less onerous than the conditions which have to be satisfied for most of the other National Insurance benefits. At least there is the element of preference to offset the admittedly incomplete coverage.
I shall now deal with the example which was given by my hon. Friend the


Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money), who raised the subject of the interment of stillborn babies in a common grave in a question to which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development replied. I think that my right hon. Friend said that there were no plans to introduce legislation at present.
I have already explained that there is nothing degrading or improper about burial in a common grave of patients who have died in hospital. I do not think that there is any need to alter that view in respect of stillborn babies. It is not uncommon in family graves for more than one coffin to be placed in the grave. There is nothing degrading or improper about the burial of several children in a municipal grave.
The description which my hon. Friend gave of conditions in one of the cemeteries was appalling. I will read carefully what he said to see whether the actions of the hospital authorities to which he has referred need further examination. Responsibility for the disposal of stillborn infants rests primarily with the parents. However, it may be convenient for the hospital, in agreement with the parents, to make the necessary arrangements at the parents' expense. My hon. Friend will appreciate that many parents who face these contingencies would much rather in such appalling cir-

cumstances leave everything in the hands of the local hospital authority, which will make the necessary arrangements to recoup the costs where they can be met by the parents. Otherwise it will meet the cost itself.
I do not know whether the example which my hon. Friend gave is a common one. I must look at the precise words he used, his exact description, before I commit myself to any general comment. I understand that the practice in the Ipswich group is to arrange for stillborn babies to be buried in a common grave except where the parents arrange for, or wish, the burial to be carried out elsewhere. I do not think that there is anything inherently improper about this. It is right for hospital authorities to carry out the task in the tragic circumstances involved. It is not degrading for a grave to contain several bodies. The great majority of parents who leave the interment of stillborn infants to hospitals are content with this—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock, on Wednesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-five minutes to Two o'clock.